Central Information Commission
Rita Chakma vs Delhi State Industrial And ... on 29 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DSIDC/A/2023/142881
Rita Chakma .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Intelligent Communication Systems
India Limited (ICSIL) Administrative
Building, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-III,
above Post Office, New Delhi - 110020 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.01.2025
Date of Decision : 28.01.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.08.2023
CPIO replied on : 21.08.2023
First appeal filed on : 21.08.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 27.09.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.10.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 10.08.2023 seeking the following information:
"Mr. Uttam Chakma, son of Padda Dhar Chakma, has been hired as a skilled worker by the Intelligent Communication Systems India Limited"
and outsourced to Rajiv Gandhi Super Specialty Hospital (RGSSH), Taharpur Road, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi-110093. The applicant seeks the following information: -
Page 1 of 4(1) Copy of the advertisement under which Mr. Uttam Chakma was selected as a skilled worker.
(2) Copy of the application and relevant documents submitted by Mr. Uttam Chakma to the Intelligent Communication Systems India Limited.
(3) Copies of the letter of selection/appointment issued by the Intelligent Communication Systems India Limited to Mr. Uttam Chakma."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.08.2023 stating as under:
"1. No advertisement was published as a deployment letter for the candidate was received from the department.
2. In this connection, it is stated that the desired information is exempted from disclosure of information as per section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005.
3. Letter attached in the E-mail as received from the department for selection of the candidate is enclosed."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 27.09.2023, held as under.
"On verifying the reply dated 21/08/2023 furnished in response to the RTI application, it was noticed that the PIO has provided the information as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005. After hearing the case, examination of the reply provided by the PIO and taking into consideration that the appellant failed to appear for hearing even after giving two opportunities, the appeal was disposed of."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Ms. Deepti Gupta, Manager (Legal)/PIO, appeared in person.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had provided point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 21.08.2023 Page 2 of 4 wherein information sought on point Nos. 1 and 3 of the RTI application was provided. As regards point No. 2 of the RTI application, the respondent submitted that information sought pertained to third party, hence, the same was denied under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, noted that point-wise reply was given to the appellant vide letter dated 21.08.2023. The respondent submitted that information sought on point Nos. 1 and 3 of the RTI application was provided to the appellant. As regards point No. 2 of the RTI application, the respondent submitted that information sought pertained to third party, hence, the same was denied under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant failed to establish any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of information.
The appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented herself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter.
In view of the above, the Commission finds that appropriate reply has been given by the respondent and interference of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 3 of 4 Copy To:
The FAA DSIIDC Limited Plot No.74-A, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi - 110024 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)