Central Information Commission
Rohit Arora vs Gnctd on 28 June, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/117767
Rohit Arora .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Department of Forest & Wildlife,
GNCTD, Office of the Dy. Conservator of Forests,
North Forest Division, MGICCC,
Alipur Bakhtawarpur Road, Bakoli,
Delhi - 110036. .....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.06.2024
Date of Decision : 27.06.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.01.2023
CPIO replied on : 31.01.2023
First appeal filed on : 08.02.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 27.02.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.04.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.01.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 5
"Please supply me the attested copy of the "Action Taken Report" in view of my letter dated 07-12-2022 with respect to Application (ID No. 9483) sent to the District Conservator of Forest (West Division)."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 31.01.2023 stating as under:
"Only the person / agency which owns the land where the tree is to be felled / pruned can apply for obtaining permission. If the tree in question is not on your property you may kindly contact the land-owning agency concerned for felling / pruning up the online application for tree felling / pruning."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.02.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 27.02.2023, held as under:
"The matter has been viewed by undersigned i.e. 1st Appellate Authority. It is noticed that the reply was provided by SPIO/DCF (North) to the applicant vide letter dated 31.01.2023 and reply given by the SPIO is satisfactory as per DPTA, 1994."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Ramesh Yadav, Range Officer, appeared in person.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant sought action taken report on his representation dated 07.12.2022 wherein he has requested to take necessary action regarding felling/removal of dry trees standing in the Central Park owned and maintained by the society "the Industrial Workers Co-operative House Building Society Ltd.". As per the appellant, said trees were detrimental to the life and property of the people residing therein. The respondent stated that only the person / agency which owns the land where the tree is to be felled / pruned can apply for obtaining permission. If the tree in question is not on the appellant's property, he may kindly contact the land-owning agency concerned for felling / pruning up the online application for tree felling / pruning.Page 2 of 5
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, noted that the appellant sought action taken report on his representation dated 07.12.2022 wherein he has requested to take necessary action regarding felling/removal of dry trees standing in the Central Park owned and maintained by the society "the Industrial Workers Co-operative House Building Society Ltd." The appellant was informed that only the person / agency which owns the land where the tree is to be felled / pruned can apply for obtaining permission. The respondent during the hearing reiterated the reply given by the PIO vide letter dated 31.01.2023. It is noted that the officer who appeared before the Commission on behalf of the PIO Ms. Chesta Singh, has produced a copy of authority letter wherein name of the PIO, who authorised the said official, was not mentioned and reasons for her absence was also not mentioned. Ms. Chesta Singh, the PIO, is cautioned to be careful in future and no such incident should recur in future.
The appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented herself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. The submissions of the respondent are taken on record. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission finds that appropriate reply has been given by the respondent and interference is not called for in this matter.
A pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar cases dealt by this bench in the recent past is that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing First Appeals, the designated CPIO's and FAA's of almost all Public Authorities under Depart of Forest & Wildlife, Government of NCT of Delhi, are only scribbling their signatures and are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email ID's which is violation of instructions on the subject.
In this regard, the Commission finds it pertinent to refer its own judgment dated 02.07.2012, passed in Second Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000971, wherein it has been held as under:
Page 3 of 5"9. CPIO is directed to provide full and complete information regarding expenditure incurred on all types of gifts including coats at the above-mentioned conference to the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of the order. Furthermore, commission notes that while replying to the applicant vide letter dated 31 March 2011 the former CPIO has not given his name and has only scribbled his signature which is eligible and does not give out the identity of the CPIO.
10. CPIO is directed to ensure that his name is clearly written below the signature in future."
The Commission would also like to refer an Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015, bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, regarding format of giving information to the applicants under the RTI Act, wherein following observations have been made which are as under:
"It has been observed that different public authorities provide information to RTI applicants in different formats. Though there cannot be a standard format for providing information, the reply should however essentially contain the following information:
(i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority.
(ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO.
(iii) In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.
(iv) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.
(v) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.
(vi) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned."
Advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act In view of above, an advisory, is issued to Principal Chief Conservator of Forest- cum-Head of Forest Force, Department of Forests and Wildlife, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, to take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent public authority's office and issue Page 4 of 5 necessary direction to their PIOs and FAAs to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI Applications and First Appeals in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Department of Forests and Wildlife, ABlock, 2nd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi -110002 Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, O/o Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Department of Forests and Wildlife, Govt. of NCT, A-Block, 2nd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)