Central Information Commission
Arjun Singh vs Delhi State Industrial And ... on 28 November, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DSIDC/A/2022/135195-UM
Mr.Arjun Singh
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
PIO/ Nodal Officer (RTI Cell)
D.S.I.I.D.C Ltd., N. BLOCK, BOMBAY LIFE BUILDING,
CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.11.2022
Date of Decision : 28.11.2022
Date of RTI application 22.03.2022
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of the First Appeal 13.05.2022
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 25.07.2022
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-
Page 1 of 4 Page 2 of 4Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the appellant approached the FAA.The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Arjun Singh present in the hearing, Respondent: Mr. S.K Upadhyaya, S.E and Mr. Ajit Kumar, E.E, present in the hearing.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought information regarding the year of establishment of DSIIDC, Okhla, Phase-III etc. He submitted that no reply has been furnished by the Respondent authority. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information and impose penalty on the CPIO for not furnishing a reply to his RTI application. The Respondent stated that the information is ready and can be furnished to the Appellant.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 24.11.2022 which is taken on record.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to furnish a point-wise correct and detailed revised reply to the Appellant, along with certified copies all enclosures, through speed post and an email ID provided during the hearing to the Respondent, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Commission further observes that the Respondent public authority has not provided any reply/information to the Appellant thus violating the provisions of the RTI Act and has ignored the spirit of RTI Act. The said conduct of the CPIO amounts to violation of the provisions of the RTI Page 3 of 4 Act. It also raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information is with mala fide intent for not responding to the RTI application and First Appeal. Therefore, the Commission directs to CPIO, to submit an explanation in detailed before the Commission, for not furnishing a reply/information to the RTI application, within 30 days of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनाक ं / Date: 28.11.2022 Page 4 of 4