Central Information Commission
Rajendra Motwani vs Lt. Governors Secretariat on 27 June, 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/LTGSE/A/2021/111116-UM
Mr.RajendraMotwani
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
LT. Governor's Secretariat,
Raj Niwas, Delhi-110054
....प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.06.2022
Date of Decision : 27.06.2022
Date of RTI application 04.11.2020
CPIO's response 25.11.2020
Date of the First Appeal 23.12.2020
First Appellate Authority's response 22.01.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 12.03.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought informationon following points:
The CPIO vide letter dated 25.11.2020 stated as follows:
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal.The FAA vide order dated22.01.2021 stated as follows:
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Yash Pal, ACP, ShushilSaveriya Inspector from (Traffic) Western Rang, Ms. Alka, ACP (HQ) and Mr. J.P Kothari, Dy Secretary from LG, House, present in the hearing.
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Despite its continuous efforts, the Commission was not able to contact the Appellant.
The Respondent while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that the Appellant had sought whether the Hon. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi/Administrator has taken cognizance of the complaint w.r.t to stop Noise Pollution caused by Motor Vehicles blowing pressure horns etc. He further submitted that vide letter dated 03.12.2020, they had received an RTI application from Asst. Commissioner of police, Traffic (HQ), Delhi and thereafter, they had informed the Appellant that the information sought does not pertain to their office on 31.12.2020. When queried, he submitted the information sought pertains to DCP/HQ, Traffic, Dev Prakash Shashtri Marge, Todapur, Delhi.
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent. DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, 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 CPIO to collect all the required information from the above concerned office and furnish a correct and detailed revised reply to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 45 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Commission directs the PIO of DCP/HQ, Traffic, Dev Prakash Shashtri Marge, Todapur, Delhi, to duly cooperate in sharing the information with the Respondent in keeping with the principles of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(UdayMahurkar) (उदयमाहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचनाआयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितएवंसत्यापितप्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के. राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] दिन ांक / Date: 27.06.2022