Central Information Commission
Davender Chhabra vs Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan on 6 June, 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/NYUKS/A/2022/650603
In the matter of
Davender Chhabra
... Appellant
VS
1. Central Public Information Officer
Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangthan (NYKS)
Punjab and Chandigarh Zone,
PEC Campus, Gate No. 1, Sector - 12,
Chandigarh - 160 012
2. Central Public Information Officer (RTI)
Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan
Ground Floor, 4 Jeevan Deep Building,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 05/07/2022 CPIO replied on : 11/07/2022 First appeal filed on : 04/08/2022 First Appellate Authority order dated : 16/09/2022 Second Appeal dated : 17/09/2022 Date of Hearing : 06/06/2023 Date of Decision : 06/06/2023 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Gajanand Balasaheb Gadekar, Assistant Section Officer and CPIO, present over VC Chandigarh; Suman Mudgal, Deputy Director and CPIO, present over VC at CIC 1 Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
- Can he visit Chandigarh State Office of NYKS and submit a hard copy of the Complaint to the State Director along with evidences and get the receiving copy signed as a proof.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant in his second appeal submitted that reply doesn't answer the question directly. So his main query has not been addressed and it seems misleading or incomplete information.
The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was given on 11.07.2022. However, on a query, he submitted that there is a threat to a female employee of the respondent office therefore, the appellant was not allowed to be entertained in their office, but this has not been clearly stated. He also pointed out that the female employee had filed a complaint in this regard and a copy of FIR was also submitted by the female employee.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 11.07.2022 replied to the appellant and informed him that the complaint can be sent by post or e-mail. The FAA vide order dated 16.09.2022 disposed of the first appeal and concurred with the CPIO's reply. The Commission observed that the information sought is in the nature of seeking answer and not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. The reply given was irrelevant and the same should have been replied to stating that interrogatory queries are not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, and the fact that the information sought is not covered under Sec 2(f) of the RTI Act, the Commission finds no scope for providing any relief to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 2 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