CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Adjunct to Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00240 dated 25-4-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Complainant: Ms. BM Kumari & Mr. BM Nainamba, Secunderabad
Respondent: Director General, NCC Min. of Defence (MoD)
ORDER
In our Decision of 18.6.2008, we had directed as follows :
“Shri P. Raghunarayanan will, therefore, show cause in writing by
30th June, 2008 as to why he should not be held liable for penalty
of Rs. 8000/- or in the alternative he may appear before us on 9th
July, 2008 at 4.00 p.m. If on the other hand he ascribes the delay to
the Legal Advisor, the explanation of that official may be appended
with Shri Raghunarayanan’s explanation”
Shri Raghunarayanan, Jt. Director (Personnel) has accordingly in his letter
of 26.6.08 submitted as follows :
“3(a) No application dated 02 Nov 2006 was received from Ms BM
Kumari and Ms BM Nainamba. However, application dated
Nov 2006 (no date mentioned) Addressed to DGNCC, new
Delhi was received on 22 Nov 2006. Since the application
was on a Rs. 10/- Non-Judicial Stamp Paper the date of 02
Nov 2006 shown is that of the stamp paper issue date and
not the date of application (a copy of the application is
enclosed).
(b) Simultaneously the complainant had also sent the same
application to Dy. Director General, NCC Dte Andhra
Pradesh, Secunderabad on 17 Nov 2006 which in turn was
received in the Dte Gen NCC, New Delhi on 04 Dec 2006
(copy enclosed). The individual viz Smt. Anita Nagarajan,
whose personal records have been sought, is working in the
NCC Dte AP, Secrunderabad.
(c) The contents of both the applications were same which were
addressed to two different authorities in NCC located at two
different stations. The reply dated 03jan 2007 pertains to
both the applications (copy enclosed).
4. In view of the above, it is submitted that no undue delay has
occurred in giving the reply to the complainant and the
undersigned may kindly be absolved of the proposed
penalty.”
As per the above, the application was received through different circuits
only on 4th December, 2006 and both applications were responded to jointly on
3.1.2007. In light of the above, it is clear that Shri P. Raghunarayanan cannot be
held liable for penalty in this regard. However, the Director General, NCC is
advised to so streamline his infrastructure for processing of RTI
applications so as to ensure that whenever received, even after internal
transit, time limits laid down in Sec. 7(1) are infact adhered to.
This show cause notice was scheduled for hearing by video conferencing
on 9.7.2008. However, respondent Shri P. Raghunarayanan has submitted that
would wish for a decision to be taken on his submission. This decision is
accordingly announced in open chamber
The appeal is now closed. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the
parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
18.7.2008
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of
this Commission.
(Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar)
Jt. Registrar
18.7.2008