Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Parinay Gupta vs Directorate Of Health Services Head ... on 29 September, 2025

                             के ीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/DHSHD/A/2024/617072

Parinay Gupta                                              .....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम


PIO,
Directorate General of Health
Services, F-17, Karkardooma,
Delhi - 110092                                           .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    18.09.2025
Date of Decision                    :    29.09.2025

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    03.02.2024
CPIO replied on                     :    Not on record
First appeal filed on               :    12.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order   :    03.04.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    25.04.2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.02.2024 (online) seeking the following information:

"Kindly provide the copy of blacklisting order passed against 10 distributor firms issued by CPA (DGHS, GNCTD OF DELHI) prior to issue of order no F1(2)/53/DGHS/CPA/2023-24/357 dt. 31/01/2024 by Dr. Hari Charan Birua, Addl. Director (HQ).

Kindly provide the copy of Blacklisting order passed against M/s Pharma Surge Impex & BRIJ Textiles by Safdurjung Hospital Delhi, as mentioned in enclosures of order dt. 31/01/2024 at serial no. 5 passed by Dr. Hari Charan Birua, Addl. Director (HQ)."

2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.03.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 03.04.2024, held as under:

"This is an appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act, 2005 filed by Parinay Gupta, for providing reply by the PIO in response to the online RTI application Id no DROHS/R/2024/60033.

The appeal was conducted on 03.04.2024, ASO(CPA) and APIO(RTI) were present in the appeal but the appellant was absent in the appeal. HOO (CPA) is directed to provide the reply directly to the appellant within 7 working days.

Order passed and appeal disposed of accordingly."

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Dr. Pramod Arya, SAG and Dr. Anemesh Kumar, SMO present in person.

4. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 25.04.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.

5. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.

6. The Respondent, during the hearing, submitted that a revised reply in the matter will be provided to the Appellant. The Respondent was unable to explain as to why no initial reply was given to the Appellant.

Decision:

7. The Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant Appeal was non-furnishing of complete information by the PIO on the RTI application of the Appellant.

8. The Commission observes that the FAA vide its order dated 03.04.2024 had directed the PIO to provide revised reply to the Appellant. But there is nothing on record which could establish that the directions of the FAA have been complied.

9. In light of the above observations, the Respondent is directed to re-

examine the RTI application dated 03.02.2024 of the Appellant and give revised updated position in the matter to the Appellant, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

10. If the information sought pertains to some other department, then the Respondent is directed to take assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act from the concerned official who should be the deemed PIO in the present case w.r.t the information sought in his RTI application and provide information/updated status in the matter to the Appellant, free of cost.

11. The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.

12. The Respondent is directed to be cautious in future and ensure that reply/information should be provided to the RTI applicants within stipulated period as per the RTI Act so as to avoid penal action in future.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Page 3 of 4 Copy To:

The FAA, Addl. Director, Directorate General of Health Services, F-17, Karkardooma, Delhi - 110092 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)