Central Information Commission
Binu Pillai vs Military Engineer Services on 12 May, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/MESER/A/2020/696172
In the matter of
Binu Pillai
... Appellant
VS
CPIO
Headquarters, Commander Works Engineers AF,
Bhuj - Kutch - 370 001
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 10/07/2020 CPIO replied on : 05/10/2020 First appeal filed on : 31/08/2020 First Appellate Authority order : 07/10/2020 Second Appeal Filed on : 07/12/2020 Date of Hearing : 12/05/2022 Date of Decision : 12/05/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: A.K Bhagia , A.E.Civil & CPIO - present over VC Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information/documents:
1. Tenders issued in MES AF Bhuj, with financial details, during the tenure of Lt. Col Rohit Jalwi, DCWE (Contract) Bhuj, MES.
2. Details of quotations accepted and works awarded during the tenure of Lt Col Rohit Jalwi DCWE (Contract), Bhuj, MES.
3. Details of contractors removed from the approved panel during the tenure of Lt Col Rohit Jalwi with reasons and copy of letter issued.
4. And other related information.1
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present to plead his case despite service of hearing notice on 29.04.2022 vide speed post acknowledgment No. ED039832574IN. However, in his second appeal stated that he wants accurate information on how public money is being spent and to know how corruption is being dealt with by the department.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply given on 05.10.2020 which was a detailed point wise one. The RTI was received only on 1.10.2020 as the portal to receive the online was revived then therefore the delay in replying.
Observations:
From a perusal of the reply of the CPIO, it is noted that a detailed point wise reply with linked relevant documents was provided to the appellant. The CPIO during the hearing explained why there was so much delay in providing the reply and the appellant was not present to indicate the points of contention as no specific flaw has been pointed out by him in second appeal.
Decision:
In view of the fact that such a detailed point wise reply was provided by the CPIO and the fact that the appellant did not attend the hearing to specify which points of the RTI application he was aggrieved with, no further action is called for.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
2