Amal Chandra Paul vs Msme Development Institute,Kolkata on 20 November, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Amal Chandra Paul vs Msme Development Institute,Kolkata on 20 November, 2019

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                              के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SISKL/A/2018/611588

Amal Chandra Paul                                         ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                   VERSUS
                                    बनाम
CPIO, M/o MSME, MSME-                                     ... ितवादी/Respondent
Development Institute, Kolkata.

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 10-10-2017           FA     : 20-11-2017          SA: 07-02-2018

CPIO : 05-10-2018          FAO : 20-11-2018             Hearing: 18-11-2019

                                  ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o MSME, MSME-Development Institute, Kolkata seeking information as follows:-

"I want to inspect the relevant file and certified photo copies pertaining to my representation on the subject (Representation against APAR) submitted on 09-08-2016 to the Director, MSME- Development Institute, Kolkata."

2. The CPIO responded on 05-10-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 20-11-2017 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 20-11- 2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Page 1 of 4

Hearing:

3. The appellant, Mr. Amal Chandra Paul attended the hearing through video conferencing. Mr. Deppak Sharma (the then CPIO, now retired), Mr. Debabrato Mitra, Dy. Director participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.

4. The appellant stated that the reply dated 05-10-2018 was sent to him without any relevant enclosure and therefore the respondent should be directed to provide him the annexures pertaining to the action taken on his representation dated 09-08- 2016.

5. The respondent regretted for their mistake and agreed to re-send a copy of their replies dated 05-10-2018 and 20-11-2018 to the appellant along with the relevant annexures pertaining to the action taken on his representation dated 09-08- 2016. Further, they submitted that it happened due to poor maintenance of record for which they will take an appropriate action against the delinquent official. Decision:

6. This Commission observed that the respondent did not send the relevant attachment to the appellant on two occasions i.e. on 05-10-2018 and 20-11-2018. This indicates that the record keeping of the respondent public authority is far from being satisfactory. It is in the larger public interest that every file/record(s) should be maintained properly, archived securely and indefinitely or for the prescribed retention period. This poor state of record keeping is perilous for proper implementation of the RTI Act and detrimental to ensure the accountability of the public authority to every stakeholder of the society. The public authority should review and improve their system of record keeping and should refrain from pleading it as a justification for non-compliance. Hence, the CPIO is hereby issued a warning for poor record keeping and lack of supervision to ensure prompt and timely reply.

7. Further, the CPIO is directed to re-send their replies dated 05-10-2018 and 20-11-2018 to the appellant through the registered post along with the relevant annexures pertaining to the action taken on his representation dated 09-08-2016 as per the RTI Act, 2005, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

Page 2 of 4

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


                                                              नीरज कु मार गु ा)
                                          Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज           ा
                                                                  सूचना आयु )
                                        Information Commissioner (सू

                                                            दनांक / Date 18-11-2019

Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत  ित)

S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)




                                                                          Page 3 of 4
 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO,
   M/o MSME, CPIO,
   MSME-Development Institute,
   112/112, BT Road, Kolkata
   W.B - 700108


2. Mr. Amal Chandra Paul




                                 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission