Central Information Commission
Mr. Megh Raj Mittal vs Cbi on 5 August, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No.- CIC/WB/C/2009/000460 dated 27.08.'09
Right to Information Act- Section 18
Complainant: Shri Megh Raj Mittal
Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Decision announced 5.8.2010
Facts:-
The Commission has received a complaint from Shri Megh Raj Mittal of Baroda, Gujarat that his request submitted to the Central Public Information Officer, HQ, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi seeking information on the fate of his representations forwarded to them by Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances on 16.07.2008, has not been responded to, even though the same was duly submitted along with requisite fee dated 23.07.2009.
Admitting the complaint of Shri Mittal, the Commission served notice on CPIO, HQ, CBI, New Delhi on 28.06.2010. In response, CPIO S.P. HQ, CBI, New Delhi, forwarded the notice along with it's enclosures to CPIO & AIG(P- I)/CBI, North Block, New Delhi for further necessary action as the complaint dated 27.08.2009 of the complainant was forwarded to them and a copy of the letter was endorsed to the Commission. Subsequently, comments have been received from CPIO & AIG(P-I)/CBI, North Block, New Delhi on 22.07.2010 with a copy also endorsed to complainant. CPIO & AIG(P-I)/CBI, North Block, New Delhi has informed the Commission that a response to the request dated 24.11.2008 which was received on 05.12.2008, was sent to the complainant on 11.12.2008 informing him that the information sought by him was not available in that Office and the complainant together with DoAR&PG were requested to send a copy of the said representation for linking the matter. The CPIO has further informed that on receipt of the said reference from the complainant & DoAR&PG on 21.01.2009, the concerned section of the CBI was requested on 10.02.2009 1 to link the matter and as the dealing officer went on leave from 16.02.2009 to 27.02.2009 the said file, wherein the complainant's request was dealt with, was mixed with other disposed files and inadvertently the said file remained unattended. The CPIO has further stated that a response to the request of the complainant has now been sent on 22.07.2010 informing him of the status of his representation that the said representation had been forwarded to Office of D. G. S. & D, Pune for necessary action. CPIO has enclosed a copy of the response sent to the complainant with his comments. Complainant on his part has filed no rejoinder to the comments submitted by the CPIO.
Decision From a perusal of the facts made available by the CPIO, AIG(P-I)/CBI, North Block, New Delhi, it is clear that, although a response to the request of the complainant has been given on 11.12.2008, the response against the information sought has been provided only on 22.07.2010. Hence, there is a comprehensive delay in this exercise arising from one dealing officer proceeding on leave. This exposes what might be considered a major shortcoming in the system of dealing with applications under RTI within the section. Although therefore, no penalty will lie, Director CBI is urged to take note and initiate remedial measures.
Complainant Shri Megh Raj Mittal is on the other hand advised that should he find the response which has now been provided by CPIO, unsatisfactory, he might approach the 1st appellate authority of the department u/s 19(1) and consequently if, not satisfied with the decision of the appellate authority, he will be free to move a 2nd appeal before us u/s 19(3) of the Act.
Announced on this the fifth day of August 2010 in open chambers. Notice of this decision is given free of cost to the parties.
Wajahat Habibullah (Chief Information Commissioner) Aug 5 2010 2 Authenticated true copy, additional copies of order shall be supplied against application and payment of the charge prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar Joint Registrar Aug 5 2010 3