Central Information Commission
Sushil Kumar Jain vs Housing And Urban Development ... on 11 October, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/HUDCO/A/2021/612429
Sushil Kumar Jain .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Under Secretary-(RTI Section),
Housing & Urban Development
Corporation Limited, HUDCO Bhawan,
Core-7-A, India Habitat Centre,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.10.2020
CPIO replied on : 07.12.2020
First appeal filed on : 22.01.2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Second Appeal received at CIC : 08.04.2021
Date of Hearing : 11.10.2022
Date of Decision : 11.10.2022
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 5
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 07.12.2020, as under:
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 22.01.2021.
• Written submission has been received from PIO vide letter dated 06.10.2022 as under :Page 2 of 5 Page 3 of 5
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. J.P. Nahar, CPIO, Mr S.P. Tripathi, AA, HUDCO.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission. They further submitted that the relevant information has been already furnished to the Appellant within stipulated time.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their written submission along with annexures, dated 06.10.2022, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission Perusal of records submitted by the Respondent reveals that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act from available official records, has Page 4 of 5 been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of provisions of the Act. Moreover, the Appellant did not avail the opportunity to appear and buttress the case despite service of hearing notice.
In the given circumstances, since the information held by the Respondent stands disseminated, no cause of action subsists under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 5