Raj Trehan vs Department Of Consumer Affairs on 16 January, 2024

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Raj Trehan vs Department Of Consumer Affairs on 16 January, 2024

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                    के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                                बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                            नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOCAF/A/2022/637930

Shri Raj Trehan                                              ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Department of Consumer Affairs                      ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                        :   16.01.2024
Date of Decision                       :   16.01.2024
Chief Information Commissioner         :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :         21.05.2022
PIO replied on                    :         21.06.2022
First Appeal filed on             :         21.06.2022
First Appellate Order on          :         11.07.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :         13.07.2022

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.05.2022 seeking information on the following points:-

"(1) This is with reference to the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA).

(2) Please provide the certified copy of the recent notices issued by the CCPA against Ola and Uber. The aforesaid notices have widely been reported in the media.

(3) Please ensure that the documents provided are certified as per the DoP&T office memorandum number 10/1/2013-IR dated 06-Oct-2015, which states that: the PIO should endorse on the document True copy of the document/record supplied under RTI Act, sign the document with date, above a seal containing name of the officer, PIO and name of public authority.

(4) On receipt of the information under this application, me and/or my representative(s) intend to carry out actual inspection of the records at your office u/s 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005 read with Explanation to Section 4, Section 2(f) & 2(i), and the relevant RTI Rules 2012. Me and/or my representative(s) be permitted such inspection."

Page 1 of 3

The CPIO vide letter dated 21.06.2022 stated as under:

I am to refer to your online RTI application having registration no. DOCAF/R/E/22/00445 dated 21st May, 2022 and to say that information on notices issued by Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to Ola and Uber are available in the public domain at https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1826940.

2. The above matter is still under consideration by CCPA and has not reached finality. Therefore, the information mentioned in respect of all points mentioned and permission for inspection sought in your RTI application cannot be provided, as it is exempted under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2022. The FAA vide order dated 11.07.2022 upheld the CPIO's reply.

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

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 15.01.2024 has been received from the CPIO reiterating the aforementioned facts.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Smt. Swwarupa Saraan - CPIO was present during the hearing. Respondents present during hearing stated that whatever information was held by them with respect to the Appellant's queries was duly provided to him, in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Since the investigation is still ongoing hence, the information sought by the Appellant has not been furnished as yet.

Decision:

On perusal of records of the case, it is noted that the Respondent has replied in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Thus, the response sent by the Respondent is legally appropriate as information as permissible under the RTI Act has been duly disseminated. The Appellant has chosen not to contest the case, despite service of hearing notice in advance. No further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालालसामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 2 of 3 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission