Central Information Commission
Sundaram S vs Department Of Rural Development on 28 January, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/RURAL/A/2020/678376
In the matter of:
Sundaram S
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Ministry of Rural Development
Deptt of Rural Dev, Rural Connectivity Div.
Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi - 110 001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 05/04/2020 CPIO replied on : Not on Record
First appeal filed on (No.00110) : 26/05/2020 First Appellate Authority order : 28/08/2020 Second Appeal dated : 17/07/2020 Date of Hearing : 27/01/2022 Date of Decision : 27/01/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: N.G.Yirmayai, Asst Commr & CPIO- present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. What is the Minimum, Maximum and Average land width required to develop/construct a Tar Road from an existing Earthen Village Panchayat Road / Pathway in a Rural Village Panchayat / Hamlet under any of the Central or State Government Scheme.
2. Provide copies of the document related to point no.1 particularly on the Minimum Road Width requirement to form Tar Road in a Rural Village Panchayat/Hamlet.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.1
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
In his second appeal, the appellant has reiterated the points raised in the RTI application and desired that the information be provided. In his written submissions, he stated that he received two letters from the FAA dated 21.08.2020 and 28.08.2020, but these came to him after the filing of the second appeal. He stated that he did not receive information on point no. 1, and desires the same.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the replies dated 21.08.2020 & 28.08.2020. The FAA had explained that the delay that occured in providing a reply was possibly due to the lockdown. In the reply, the FAA had explained that the matter relates to the State authorities and the appellant was advised to approach them for information. A further letter was, however, sent to the appellant on 28.08.2020 with additional information. He also drew attention to the written submisisons sent to the Commission dated 24.01.2022.
The CPIO informed during the hearing, that whatever is left in terms of information can be obtained from the State authorities, who are the implementers of the scheme. They have given whatever they have available with them.
Observations:
In view of the above submissions of the CPIO, no further information is available with them to provide to the appellant and he was accordingly told during the hearing.
Decision:
Under these circumstances, no further relief can be given to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयु त) 2 Authenticated true copy (अ!भ#मा$णत स&या'पत# त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3