Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ragib Gayyur vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 2 July, 2020

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

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EMCDS/A/2018/159063

Shri Ragib Gayyur                                              ... अपीलकता /Appellant
                                   VERSUS/बनाम

PIO/Exe. Engineer (Building-I),                          ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
EDMC, Vishwas Nagar,
Delhi

Date of Hearing                         :   30.06.2020
Date of Decision                        :   02.07.2020

Through: Shri Rajesh Sharma,
PIO/Ex. Engineer (Bldg-1) present
through audio conference

Information Commissioner                :   Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on                :   06.02.2018
PIO replied on                          :   10.04.2018
First Appeal filed on                   :   19.04.2018
First Appellate Order on                :   16.05.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on         :   18.09.2018

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.02.2018 seeking information on the following 6 points:

1. Who held up the original documents/Paper which was sent to you through registered post RU598975935 IN.

2. Who held up the original documents/paper which was submitted at Dy.

Commissioner, EDMC-Shah, South Zone, East Delhi on 29th October 2013.

3. Are all documents' original copies are available at the dept. If yes then provide the name and designation of the concerned person.

4. If lost the original documents, have you made police FIR or taking any action upon this. I need information in writing from.

5. What action taken against the dept. who lost all these original documents.

6. What action taken if any original documents missed or theft from the dept.

[Queries are verbatim] Page 1 of 3 PIO/EE (B)-I, EDMC, vide letter dated 10.04.2018 forwarded the reply to the Appellant provided by J.E.(B)/Sh(S) Zone and AE/APIO/Sh(S) Zone.

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.04.2018. FAA vide order dated 16.05.2018 directed the PIO/EE (B)-I, to provide the complete available information, as sought, to the Appellant within 15 days.

Feeling aggrieved over the non compliance of the FAA order, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO.

Respondent is represented by Shri Rajesh Sharma, PIO/Ex. Engineer (Bldg-1) through audio conference. He submitted that he has assumed the charge of PIO on 30.06.2020 and that his predecessor i.e., Shri S.D. Tomar, Executive Engineer (Building-I), Shahdara (South) Zone has provided a reply on 24.06.2020 and a copy of the same has been submitted to the Commission by hand on 29.06.2020.

Appellant interjected to state that he has not received the aforesaid letter dated 24.06.2020.

Decision:

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission observes that the Respondent has violated the provisions of the RTI Act by not complying with the order of the First Appellate Authority within the specified timeframe. Further, after receiving a hearing notice from the Commission, the order of the FAA has been complied with after an inordinate delay of 24 months. In this regard, Commission expresses displeasure over the conduct of the concerned PIO and warns him to be more careful in adhering to the time-frame specified in the RTI Act while handling matters pertaining to RTI Act.

Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that the aforesaid revised reply dated 24.06.2020 provided to the Appellant is satisfactory. Hence, no further relief is ordered in the instant matter.

With the aforesaid observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed off.

वाई.

                                                                    वाई. के . िस हा)
                                                       Y. K. Sinha (वाई       िस हा
                                           Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )

Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णतस या पत त)

Ram Parkash Grover (राम  काश  ोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26180514




                                                                           Page 3 of 3