Central Information Commission
Mrdevi Krishan Sharma vs Ministry Of Urban Development on 14 May, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/KY/C/2014/000009
Appellant : Shri Devi Krishan Sharma
272B, Pkt-C, Mayur Vihar,
Phase II, Delhi-110091
Public Authority : The CPIO
CPWD, Director General, Vigilance Unit
Nirman Bhawan, Delhi
Date of Hearing : 14.05.2015
Date of Decision : 14.05.2015
Presence:
Appellant : Shri Devi Krishan Sharma, learned Advocate
CPIO : Shri Krishan Avtar Meena, EE & CPIO
FACTS:
I. Vide RTI application dated 06.06.2013, the appellant sought information on the 11 issues. II. CPIO, vide its response dated 07.06.2013, 13.06.2013, 19.07.2013, 19.09.2013, has denied provided the information u/s 8 (1)(j).
III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 17.08.2013, as desired information not provided. IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide his order dated 12.09.2013, upheld the views of CPIO. V. Grounds for the second appeal filed on 02.12.2013, are contained in the Memorandum of appeal.
HEARING Appellant as well as respondent appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION
1. At the outset, it is stated here that as per the contents of the so called complaint, it is a case of second appeal. However, the Central Registry of this Commission registered it wrongly as a complaint for the reasons best known to them. Thus, it is being dealt with as second appeal and not as complaint.
2. During hearing of the appeal, it is submitted by the appellant that he has received the required information from the respondents, against all issues except issues no. 8, 9 & 11 of his RTI application dated 06.06.2013. Therefore he wants to press only these three issues i.e. issues no. 8, 9 & 11, before this Commission.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 06.06.2013, sought information from the respondents on eleven issues. Respondents, vide their responses dated 07.06.2013 & 13.06.2013, transferred the appellant's RTI application to the concerned Public Authority for taking necessary action. Further, another CPIO vide his response dated 19.07.2013, provided the required information to the appellant against issue no. 10. However, denied the required information, against issues no. 1 to 8, to the appellant by taking a plea under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005. Furthermore, another CPIO vide his letter dated 19.09.2013, again denied the required information, against issues no. 5, 9 & 11, to the appellant by taking a plea under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 17.08.2013 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 12.09.2013, upheld the decision of CPIO. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
........2 -2-
4. On careful perusal of the nature of the issues no. 8, 9 & 11, the Commission feels that the appellant seeks the personal information in respect of Shri P R Meena, EE (Civil) and which was correctly denied by the respondents vide their letter dated 19.07.2013 & 19.09.2013, by taking a plea under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005 and which was also upheld by the learned FAA vide his order dated 12.09.2013. On this, the appellant was given sufficient time by the Commission to make the submissions regarding invocation of section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005 by the respondents and he made the lengthy submissions on the issues, under reference. He also made written submissions along with some case-law on the issue. However, the Commission has gone through the case-law cited by learned Advocate in his written submissions and the Commission feels that these case-law are not relevant, at all, to the issue, under reference. Thus, not applicable in the captioned case.
5. The Commission heard the submissions made by appellant as well as respondents at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 06.06.2013, respondent's responses dated 07.06.2013, 13.06.2013, 19.07.2013 & 19.09.2013, FAA's order dated 12.09.2013 appellant's hand written submissions dated 14.05.2015 and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
6. In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commission is of the considered view that the plea taken by CPIO under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005 appears to be justified in the eyes of Law. As such, there is no legal flaw either in CPIO's responses or FAA's order. Therefore, the CPIO's responses dated 19.07.2013 & 19.09.2013 and FAA's order dated 12.09.2013 are hereby upheld being legally tenable. In view of this, the appellant's second appeal deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, it is dismissed.
The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar The CPIO CPWD, Director General, Vigilance Unit Nirman Bhawan, Delhi Shri Devi Krishan Sharma 272B, Pkt-C, Mayur Vihar, Phase II, Delhi-110091