CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00982 dated 22.10.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Ram Mohan Garg
Respondent - Central Vigilance Commission
Facts
:
By an application of 7.4.’07 Shri Ram Mohan Garg of Khair, Distt. Aligarh
(U.P.) applied to the CPIO, CVC seeking the following information:
“u/s 6 sub sec. (1) of Right to Information Act, 2005, kindly arrange
to provide action taken by Central Vigilance Commission and
witnesses’ recording by Investigating Officer on my applications
dated 4.12.04 & 21.12.2005”
To this he received a response on 30.4.07 from Shri K. L. Ahuja, Director &
CPIO, CVC as follows:
“The Commission maintains its record by the name(s) of the
officer(s) involved in the matter and the Ministry/Department to
which it relates. Therefore, such details may be provided
immediately, or copies of the earlier letters may be provided, so
that the relevant papers may be linked up.”
Not satisfied with this response, however, Shri Garg moved his first appeal
before the Appellate Authority, CVC on 8.5.07 with the following prayer:
“First Appellate Authority is requested to kindly cancel the Order of
CPIO sent vide No. CVV/RTI/07/195-55088 dated 30.4.2007 and
arrange to provide the complete and correct information, as
requested in RTI request dated 7.4.2007 at an early date.”
Upon this Shri V. Kannan, AS in his order of 21.5.07 found as follows:
“I have checked the computer record and found that your
complaints dated 4.12.2004 and 21.12.2005 were received in this
Commission and as per “Action on Complaints Policy” of this
Commission, the same had been filed. Commission Policy on
“Action on Complaints Policy” is available on Commission’s website
https:/cvc.nic.in. Record of your complaint has been destroyed, as
per maintenance/ destruction of record policy of the Commission.”
1
Appellant Shri Garg has then moved his second appeal before us with the
following prayer:
“It is, therefore, requested to kindly issue orders for supplying me
detailed information as asked for vide my letter dated 7.4.2007
together with recording of witnesses.
It is also prayed that respondent No. 1 may be fined for not
providing the information within mandated time limit as also to
respondent No. 2 for non disposal of appeal and appellant be
provided compensation u/s 20 of the Act.”
The appeal was heard on 20.2.09. The following are present:
Appellant
Shri Ram Mohan Garg 1 .
Respondent
Sh. P. S. Gupta, CVC
Appellant Shri Garg submitted that if his application had been rejected, he
should have been suitably informed but has come to know only in the present
hearing of this rejection. It is pointed out to him, however, that the orders of Shri
V. Kannan have been attached with the documents submitted in his own second
appeal by him before us. This clearly explains that the complaints in question
stand filed and moreover having exceeded the time limit for destruction of
records, have also now been destroyed.
DECISION NOTICE
During the hearing appellant has desired to know why the two complaints
moved by him have been filed. This was not, however, his request in the initial
application nor indeed in his first appeal, which simply asked for the action taken
on these complaints. This request has been fully answered. The answer of the
appellate authority. Shri V. Kannan AS also gives the reasons as to why these
cases have been filed, since in the view of the CVC they did not meet the criteria
of the Commission’s policy on proceeding further with complaints. Any further
1
Although arrangements had been made for video conferencing at Aligarh, appellant is present in
person at CIC Studio, New Delhi.
2
details that appellant wishes to obtain can only be the subject of a fresh
application and cannot be provided through an appeal on the questions put by
him which stand answered. In view of this we find this appeal without merit and it
is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
20.2.2009
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 Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
20.2.2009
3