C. F. Thomas vs National Test House on 11 December, 2023

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

C. F. Thomas vs National Test House on 11 December, 2023

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                    के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                                 बाबागंगनाथमार्ग, मुनिरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.   CIC/NTSTH/A/2022/102986
                                          CIC/NTSTH/A/2022/113380


Shri C. F. Thomas                                             ... अपीलकर्ता/Appellant

                                     VERSUS/बनाम
PIO,                                                       ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
National Test House, Ministry of Consumer
Affairs, Kolkata

 Date of Hearing                          :   07.12.2023
 Date of Decision                         :   11.12.2023
 Chief Information Commissioner           :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
    Case      RTI Filed  CPIO reply First appeal  FAO       2nd Appeal
    No.          on                                        received on
  102986     06.10.2021       -      20.11.2021    -      24.01.2022
  113380     22.11.2021       -      13.01.2022    -      21.01.2022

Information sought

and background of the case:

(1) CIC/ NTSTH/A/2022/102986 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.10.2021 the details of which cannot be ascertained since the enclosure containing the application is not attached with the Second Appeal.

Having not received a response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2021 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Page 1 of 3

(2) CIC/ NTSTH/A/2022/113380 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.11.2021 seeking information regarding Recruitment/Promotion for post of "Maintenance Supervisor" in National Test House.

Having not received a response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.01.2021 which was not adjudicated by the CPIO as per available records.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present with Shri Sanakara S Respondent: Shri Anil Pandey, CPIO and Scientist C through audio conference Shri Sanakara S (Appellant's representative) stated that information was not provided in both the matters. In Second Appeal No CIC/ NTSTH/A/2022/102986, a reply dated 24.01.2022 was provided wherein it was mentioned that since the information requested were more than 37 years old, the same cannot be retrieved and provided to the Appellant in accordance with Section 8 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, in Second Appeal No CIC/ NTSTH/A/2022/113380, no reply was provided, till date.

Shri Anil Pandey stated that he was not the concerned CPIO at the time of filing of the RTI application and that the information requested may be available with the Hqrs.

Decision In the light of the facts of the case and submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that the RTI applications of the Appellant were not handled appropriately. Neither is any written submission available on record nor was the Respondent appearing before the Commission able to explain the factual position in the matter. The Commission also finds that in the reply dated 24.01.2022 sent belatedly to the Appellant with respect to the RTI application under consideration in Second Appeal No CIC/ NTSTH/A/2022/102986, Section 8 (3) has been incorrectly claimed to deny the information on the ground that it is 37 years old whereas the provision allows disclosure of all information which is more than 20 years old except such records that are exempt as per Section 8 (1) (a) (c) and (i) of the RTI Act, 2005. In addition, it is observed that no reply with respect to the RTI application under consideration in Second Appeal No CIC/ NTSTH/A/2022/113380 is available on record.

Page 2 of 3

In view of the above, the Commission directs the incumbent CPIO Shri Anil Pandey, Scientist C, National Test House, M/o Consumer Affairs, Kolkata as also the then CPIO responsible for the laxity in complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to show cause to the Commission explaining the reasons why penal action should not be initiated against him as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 for the lapses explained above and provide updated replies as per available records to the Appellant in both the matters. The above direction should be strictly complied with by 31.01.2024. In case, the information requested by the Appellant is not available with Shri Pandey, he is directed to obtain it from the custodian of records and ensure compliance with the direction within the above mentioned time period failing which penal action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 may be initiated. Shri Pandey is also directed to serve a copy of this order to the then CPIO and ensure timely submission of their show cause reply to the Commission.

The instant Second Appeals stand disposed off as such.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालालसामरिया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रति) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission