Central Information Commission
Bharat Bhushan Pal Varma vs Directorate General Defence Estates ... on 9 December, 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/DIGDE/A/2020/130663
In the matter of:
Bharat Bhushan Pal Varma
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Defence Estates Office
Jabalpur Circle,
Jabalpur Cantt - 482 001 (M.P.)
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 16/06/2020 CPIO replied on : Not on Record First appeal filed on : 21/07/2020 First Appellate Authority order : 16/09/2020 Second Appeal dated : 06/10/2020 Date of Hearing : 08/12/2021 Date of Decision : 08/12/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Harendra Sharma, UDC and CPIO's Representative, present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. As to when, Bunglaow No. 6, Survey No. 93 was included in the GLR register. Provide copy of the entries made in the said register.
2. As to when, the said bungalow was separated from 93A. Provide copy of the said order.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.1
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the CPIO always gave evasive replies. He stressed on the fact that if the property was registered in their name, then the papers should be available.
The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was given vide letter dated 03.08.2020.
On a query, the appellant submitted that he had not received any reply of the CPIO or the FAA.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO had not provided a timely reply. The appellant was not satisfied and therefore filed first appeal on 21.07.2020. The FAA vide order dated 16.09.2020 held that on 03.08.2020 a suitable reply was sent to the appellant. The FAA had again enclosed the same. The Commission examined the reply and noted that the CPIO failed to provide the copy of documents sought by the appellant and replied that information sought is not clear. The CPIO should provide a categorical reply in case information is not available with them or should provide the available copies.
Decision:
The CPIO is accordingly directed to provide a revised categorical reply as discussed above to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयु त) 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 2