Roop Singh vs Department Of Economic Affairs on 29 July, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Roop Singh vs Department Of Economic Affairs on 29 July, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 17.07.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 09.02.2017 and first appeal dated 29.03.2017:-

Page 1 of 3

(i) Whether it is fact my above mentioned letter dated 19-11-2016 was received by office of Hon'ble Minister of Finance and Shri Shakti Kant Das, Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, New Delhi?

(ii) What action has been taken by now on the points mentioned in the above letter dated 19-11-2016?

(iii) Please advise para-wise reply on the points mentioned in the letter received from CMD, Central Bank of India. Mumbai.

(iv) What are the reason for delay in not advising the status of the case till date?

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 09.02.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),Ministry of Finance, R.T.I Cell, North Block, New Delhi seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not reply within prescribed time. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 29.03.2017. The CPIO replied on 21.04.2017. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 17.07.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 17.07.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO and the FAA did not reply to the RTI Application. The appellant requested the Commission to take necessary actions as per the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 21.04.2017 stated that the subject matter of RTI Application is related to the Department of Financial Services, therefore the same was transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA did not pass any order.

5. The appellant attended the hearing in person and respondent remained absent.

Page 2 of 3

5.1. The appellant submitted that submitted that the First Appellate Authority had not taken any decision on his first appeal and had not provided the requisite information sought by him.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, feels that in view of the absence of the respondent the relevant facts of the case could not be ascertained. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the respondent is given a final opportunity to appear before this Commission and the matter is adjourned.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 26.07.2019 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission