Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs India Security Press, Nashik Road on 2 November, 2021
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/ISPNR/C/2019/636112
In the matter of:
Varun Krishna
... Complainant
VS
Dy. Manager (HR) & CPIO
India Security Press, Nashik Road - 422 101
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 24/01/2019 CPIO replied on : 22/02/2019 First appeal filed on : 27/02/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 11/03/2019 Complaint dated : 16/03/2019 Date of Hearing : 01/11/2021 Date of Decision : 01/11/2021 The following were present:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Ms Anuradha Karalkar, Manager (HR) & CPIO, present over VC. Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information pertaining to letter No. CHO (HR)/RTI/10-8/2016/Vol I/1596 dated 06/06/2016 issued by the Corporate Office:
1. Daily progress report mentioning name and designation of the officials with whom the representation from corporate office was/is lying along with details of action taken by him/her.
2. Evidence of receipt and despatch in the offices of each official mentioned above.
Grounds for filing Complaint:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.1
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant failed to appear for the hearing despite service of hearing notice on 07.10.2021 vide speed post acknowledgment No. ED960456066IN. However, in his complaint he had stated that since the PIO is obstructing information deliberately, knowingly and with mala-fide intentions, necessary action u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act may be taken against him and strictures must be passed against the concerned CPIO and that the PIO had given false details of the FAA in his reply. He also stated that the FAA also concurred with the PIO for obstructing the information deliberately.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the complainant on 22.02.2019. She also reiterated the contents of his written submissions dated 22.10.2021.
With regard to the contention raised by the complainant that wrong details of the FAA were given, the CPIO explained that at the time of providing a reply to the above mentioned RTI application, Shri Sudhir Sahu was the concerned FAA. Thereafter, at the end of February 2019, an office order was issued regarding re-shuffling of the CPIOs and the FAA and by the time the complainant filed his first appeal, Shri V M Dhake was appointed as the new FAA and therefore in the reply dated 22.02.2019, the details of the concerned FAA was given.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted than the sought for information was provided to the complainant on 22.02.2019 i.e. within the time specified under the RTI Act. The Commission is unable to find any flaw in the reply so given as the desired information as asked for was given within the stipulated time period and no aspersions of malafide or intentional obstruction can be construed from the behaviour of the CPIO. Hence, the Commission does not find any malafide intention on the part of the CPIO nor is there any reason to pass any stricture against the CPIO, hence, the complaint is not established.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआयु 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