Central Information Commission
J Boopalan vs Ministry Of Defence on 9 March, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.:- CIC/DODEF/A/2022/114730
In the matter of:
J Boopalan
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Cantonment Board (CB)
St. Thomas Mount Cum Pallavaram
North Parade Road, St. Thomas Mount
Chennai - 600 016
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 01/09/2021 CPIO replied on : Not on Record First appeal filed on : 22/11/2021 First Appellate Authority order dated : Not on Record Second Appeal filed on : 23/03/2022 Date of Hearing : 09/03/2023 Date of Decision : 09/03/2023 The following were present: Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Krishnamurthy, CPIO for Cantonment Board, Chennai-Present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. In respect of the Ration Shop building - 1 situated at Rajendra Prasad Road, Pallavaram, constructed by the Cantonment Board and inaugurated on 05/06/2014:
a) Provide a copy of the recommendations made to the competent authority seeking permission for construction of the said Ration Shop Building.1
b) Provide a copy of the approval of the competent authority for the construction of the said Ration Shop Building-1 by the CB.
c) Name of the contractor who executed the said work.
d) And other related information.
2. In respect of the Ration shop building - 2 situated at Rajendra Prasad Road, Pallavaram constructed by the Cantonment Board and inaugurated on 28/11/2019:
a) Provide a copy of the recommendations made to the competent authority seeking permission for construction of the said Ration Shop Building -2 by the CB.
b) Provide a copy of the approval of the competent authority for the construction of Ration Shop Building-2 by CB.
c) Name of the contractor who executed the work.
d) And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant remained absent for the hearing despite due delivery of the notice of hearing sent to him vide speed post no. ED301381771IN. In his second appeal he had stated that the CPIO and FAA had not responded on his RTI queries till date.
The CPIO submitted that no reply was provisioned to the appellant in the present case and the first appeal was also not adjudicated by the FAA. On being queried as to the reason for inaction, he feigned ignorance and was unable to properly present his case.
Observations:
Keeping in view the records of the case, the Commission observed that the CPIO in the instant case has not replied to the RTI application under reference till date. It is evident that the RTI application of the appellant was not attended to properly. The Commission expressed anguish and was appalled at the callousness of the CPIO and the FAA in handling the RTI application.
For an effective hearing to take place before the Commission, it is quintessential that the parties to the case are well-prepared and are able to 2 present the facts of the case congruously. The Commission noted that there has been blatant violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and the rules of proceedings of the Commission in the present case.
While highlighting the role of the CPIO in the RTI regime, the Commission placed reliance on the following observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P. (C) 19122/2006:
" .....The Act as framed, casts obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of Information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied ·with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow."
In the light of the aforementioned judicial pronouncement and facts on record, the Commission issued a strict warning to the CPIO to adhere to the provisions and timelines mentioned in the RTI Act, 2005 in future. Non-compliance of the same shall be viewed seriously by the Commission. The Commission also directed the CPIO to revisit the RTI application of the appellant and provide a categorical as well as point-wise reply to the appellant.
Decision:
In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide a revised reply and supply disclosable information to the appellant, duly conforming to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. The instant second appeal is therefore disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3