Central Information Commission
Kunal Kashyap vs Archaeological Survey Of India on 31 May, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/ALSOI/C/2023/637049
शितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ALSOI/A/2023/637048
Shri Kunal Kashyap ...शिकायतकताा
/Complainant
... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रशतवादीगण /Respondent
Archaeological Survey of India
Date of Hearing : 29.05.2024
Date of Decision : 29.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Since both the aforementioned cases arise out of the same RTI Application,
they ae clubbed together for final hearing and disposal.
Relevant facts emerging from the cases:
RTI application filed on : 26.05.2023
PIO replied on : 07.06.2023
First Appeal filed on : 12.07.2023
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 01.08.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application seeking information on following points:-
"1. All submissions/applications/correspondence with respect to renewal / revalidation (or fresh/new) application by M/s Atul Enterprises through proprietor Mr. Hemraj Mundada (or authorized representative) for permission(s) u/s 20 of AMASR Act at Leela Garden CHS, Kalyani Nagar, Pune. We fall under protected zone due to proximity with Aga Khan Palace.
2. Any submission/correspondence with NMA (by ASI) since May 2022 w.r.t permission of 2017, or the application of 2022.
3. Any approval/rejection/query by ASI regarding the application of 2022"
Page 1 The CPIO, National Monuments authority transferred the instant RTI Application to Competent Authority, ASI vide letter dated 07.06.2023 replied as under:-
"The subject matter of the RTI application IS more closely connected with the functions of Competent Maharashtra, Authority it hence transferred under the provisions under section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 for providing information directly to the applicant under intimation to this office."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 12.07.2023. The FAA, National Monument Authority, New Delhi vide order dated 07.08.2023 stated as under:-
"7 Having examined the RTI application, the reply of CPIO and the appeal, the CPIO Competent Authority, Maharashtra is directed to provide the information to the Appellant within 15 days of the issue of this letter as asked in above mentioned RTI applications. if the same is available in one of the forms stated under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act and upon the payment of the prescribed additional fees by the applicant. No further action is called for on this appeal, which is disposed of accordingly."
In compliance of order of FAA, the PIO, O/o Competent Authority for Maharashtra vide letter dated 24/29.08.2023 as under :
1. Yes.
NOC was issued to Mr Hemraj Shankarlal Mundada on 24/10/2017 for three years. (Copy enclosed).
2. Applicant has submitted afresh for 22.09.2022. NOC on (Copy enclosed) The matter is subjudice.
3. Not yet taken.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 18.05.2024 has been received from the Appellant/Complainant and same has been taken on record.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant/Complainant: Mr. Dhruv Goel, Advocate- Authorise Representative of the Appellant/complainant- participated in the hearing.
Page 2 Respondent: Mr. Manish Rai, Regional Director (W), Competent Authority, Maharashtra, Mr. Vikas Kumar Das, Mumbai Circle, Mr. Shubho Majumdar, FAA, Mumbai Circle, ASI- participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
Mr. Akshat Kaushik, ASI, CPIO and Mr. Aby P. Vaglese, Legal Consultant, National Monuments Authority- participated in the hearing.
Adv. Dhruv Goel submitted that the relevant information in the instant RTI Application has not been furnished to the Appellant/Complainant till date. He further stated that the RI Application has been transferred from one CPIO to another without any application of mind which thereby has resulted into obstruction in flow of information. He placed on record previous decision of this Commission on similar issue. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish information as sought. He stated that the Appellant/Complainant has not inspected any record till date. He insisted to impose penalty upon the PIO.
Mr. Manish Rai, CPIO Regional Director (W), Competent Authority stated that that the relevant information from their official records have been duly furnished to the RTI Applicant. He further stated that the Appellant had even inspected the records on 08.06.2023 and relevant documents were provided to the Applicant. He stated that the Appellant/Complainant has filed various RTI Applications raising same queries/issues and complete information has been provided to the Appellant/Complainant in this regard.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Appellant/Complainant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission based on the averment made by the parties during hearing, directs the PIO, Regional Director, Competent Authority, Maharashtra to provide another opportunity to the Appellant or his authorised representative, to inspect available and relevant records as sought in the instant RTI Application, on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and/or in writing.
In case, relevant information pertains to some other Branch/Department, then the concerned PIO should procure and provide relevant documents for the said inspection. Copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should be provided upon payment of prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012.
Page 3 However, no information shall be furnished by the PIO, to the Appellant, which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. In case, relevant record contains any third-party information or any other exempted information then same must be redacted or blacked out prior to the said inspection.
The said direction should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO. No further action lies. The Second Appeal No. CIC/ALSOI/A/2023/637048 is disposed of, accordingly.
As regards the Complaint No. CIC/ALSOI/C/2023/637049, the Commission observes that prima facie there is no malafide intention of obstructing the information to the Appellant/Complainant, hence no action warranted under section 18 and 20 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the aforementioned Complaint is disposed off, accordingly.
Matters are disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अशिप्रमाशणत सत्याशपत प्रशत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. शिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)