Central Information Commission
Chittranjan Dass vs Ministry Of Information & Broadcasting on 10 April, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/YA/C/2015/000250/SB
Dated 06.04.2017
Complainant : Shri Chittranjan Dass,
2/5136 Krishan Nagar,
Ganga Mandir Marg, Dev Nagar,
New Delhi-110005.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Directorate of Advertising &
Visual Publicity (DAVP),
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
Soochana Bhawan, CGO Complex, Phase-
IV, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
Date of Hearing : 17.02.2017/06.04.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI application filed on : 23.02.2015
First appeal filed on : 08.04.2015
Complaint filed on : 18.05.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Chittranjan Dass filed an application dated 23.02.2015 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Directorate of Advertising & Visual Publicity (DAVP), Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MoI&B), New Delhi seeking information on four points pertaining to letter No. RT-23018/84/2015-T dated 19.01.2015 of the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways regarding enforcement of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007 including (i) number and date of the letter vide which sanction has been issued to the DAVP by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways along with the copy of the said CIC/YA/C/2015/000250/SB Page 1 letter and (ii) the date on which the Ministry had sought the estimates of this project from the DAVP.
2. Shri Chittranjan Dass filed a complaint dated 18.05.2015 before the Commission on the grounds that he has not received any information/response either from the CPIO or from the First Appellate Authority (FAA), DAVP. The complainant requested the Commission to take appropriate action against the erring officials.
Hearing on 17.02.2017:
3. Both the complainant Shri Chittranjan Dass and the respondent were not present despite notice.
Interim Decision:
4. The Commission, after perusing the records, observes that as per the records available on file, it appears that no reply in response to the RTI application has been sent to the appellant. The Commission further observes that the same could not be verified due to the absence of the respondent during the hearing. Therefore, the CPIO, DAVP is liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. The CPIO, DAVP, is hereby directed to submit an explanation both by post and through e-mail at [email protected] before the Commission, on or before 30.03.2017, explaining why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him.
6. The CPIO, DAVP is further directed to appear before the Commission on 06.04.2017 at 01.15 p.m. along with a copy of his written explanations.
7. The CPIO, DAVP is also directed to inform if there is/ are other person(s) responsible for knowingly not providing complete information to CIC/YA/C/2015/000250/SB Page 2 the complainant and if so to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission on 06.04.2017 at 01.15 p.m. along with his/ their written explanations.
Hearing on 06.04.2017
8. The respondent was not present despite notice.
Interim Decision
9. The Commission, in the interests of justice, deems it appropriate, having regard to the circumstances of the case, that the CPIO, DAVP should be afforded another opportunity to submit an explanation to the show cause notice issued on 17.02.2017.
10. In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission directs CPIO, DAVP to submit an explanation both by post and through e-mail at [email protected] before the Commission, on or before 17.05.2017, explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 should not be initiated against him, failing which due action will be taken against him without giving any further opportunity.
11. The respondent is further directed to appear before the Commission on 24.05.2017 at 1.30 p.m. along with a copy of his written explanation.
12. Copy of the interim decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer CIC/YA/C/2015/000250/SB Page 3