Central Information Commission
Bhagat Singh vs Central Electiricity Regulatory ... on 18 May, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CERCO/A/2021/115183 -UM
Mr. Bhagat Singh
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission,
GF, Chanderlk Building, 36, Janpath,
New Delhi 110001
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.05.2022
Date of Decision : 18.05.2022
Date of RTI application 14.12.2020
CPIO's response 14.01.2021
Date of the First Appeal 15.01.2021
First Appellate Authority's response 11.02.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 08.04.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-
Page 1 of 3ETC.
The CPIO vide letter dated 14.01.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 11.02.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant and dispose off the First Appeal.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Bhagat Singh present in person, Respondent: Absent The Respondent remained absent during the hearing. Despite its continuous efforts, the Commission was not able to contact the Respondent.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought copies of file nothings and papers examined by the Committee the seniority of ASO/Assistants of CERC etc. He further stated that vide letter dated 14.01.2021, no correct reply has been furnished by the Respondent public authority. He alleged that in above said seniority list he was shown junior which is clear discrimination done by the Respondent authority. He said CPIO had denied Page 2 of 3 to furnish the information under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI act but after direction of the First Appellate Authority order dated 11.02.2021 incomplete information was furnished to him and remaining information was denied being third party personal information. He said without invoking section 11 of the RTI Act 2005 the CPIO had directly denied the information under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act which is not justified in the eyes of law. He informed to the Commission that he had also filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble high court regarding discrimination done by the Respondent authority in seniority list. When queried, he said due to above said discrimination he is facing huge financial loss i.e around 14 lacs. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to furnish the information as sought by him.
The Respondent was not present to contest the submissions of the Appellant.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant, the Commission directs the CPIO to invoke section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, and furnish a suitable and an updated reply to the Appellant based on the reply received from the third party, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 35 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 18.05.2022 Page 3 of 3