Central Information Commission
Pawan Agarwal vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 11 September, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/C/2016/000399
Dated 06.09.2017
Complainant : Shri Pawan Agrawal
Respondent : The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),
Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA),
North Block, New Delhi- 110001
Date of Hearing : 06.09.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the Complaint:
RTI application : 13.06.2016
CPIO's reply : 26.07.2016
First Appeal : 29.06.2016
FAA's Order : 02.08.2016
Complaint : 10.07.2016
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), seeking information on three points, including, inter alia,
(i) the action taken on his letter dated 08.06.2016 and if the proceedings thereto are pending, then the reasons concerning the pendency, and (ii) the details pertaining to the duration stipulated by the law of the land within which the letters/ representations of the nature similar to the complainants' are required to be dealt with by the Department.
Page | 1
2. The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that no reply, in response to the RTI application, was provided by the CPIO. The complainant is also aggrieved by the non-disposal of his first appeal by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) within the stipulated time frame as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for by him.
Hearing:
3. The complainant Shri Pawan Agrawal attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent, Shri S. K. Bhalla, Director, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), was present in person.
4. The complainant submitted that no reply, in response to the RTI application, was provided by the respondent organization. Therefore, the requisite information has not been furnished.
5. The respondent submitted that vide the CPIO's reply dated 26.07.2016, the complainant was informed that his representation dated 08.06.2016 was forwarded to the concerned authorities viz. the VIP Security Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, State Government of Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) for necessary action. Besides, the RTI application dated 13.06.2016 was also transferred, under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, to the Secretary, DoP&T, Secretary (Home), Government of UP, Lucknow and Under Secretary (VIP Security), MHA, New Delhi. The complainant was also advised to obtain further information from the aforesaid authorities for procuring the desired information. The respondent also stated that the FAA vide its Order dated 02.08.2016, had upheld the reply provided by the CPIO.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the complainants' representation dated 08.06.2016 as well as his RTI application dated 13.06.2016 was transferred, Page | 2 under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, to the concerned public authorities. However, no information was furnished to the complainant by them. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO, Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) and the CPIO, VIP Security Division, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to provide the information sought by the complainant, to him, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The CPIO, MHA shall ensure that a copy of this Order is served upon the CPIO, DoP&T and the CPIO, VIP Security Division, MHA.
7. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.S. Rohilla) Designated Officer Page | 3