In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001018
Date of Hearing : July 11, 2011
Date of Decision : July 11, 2011
Heard through Video Conferencing
Parties:
Applicant
Shri S S Vohra
4572, Bldg No. 129
New Tilak Nagar
Chembur
Mumbai - 4000 089.
Applicant heard through Video conferencing
Respondent(s)
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
Pay & Accounts Office (IRLA)
AGCR Building, I.P.Estate
New Delhi.
Represented by : Shri Arun Kumar Mittal, PAO
Shri R C Jain, Dy CA
Mrs Veena Mehta, AAO
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/01018
ORDER
Background
1. The RTI Application dated 26.10.2010 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, Sr.Accounts Officer,
M/o Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi seeking information against four points with regard to the
court cases filed by him in various courts against PAO (IRLA) vide OA no. 426 of 2001, OA no. 268 of
2006 and W.P. 5166 of 2009. He also, including details of when Bank details of the right claimant as
sought by the Authority vide PAO/IRLA/PEN/I&B/992000/3637 has actually been issued and
posted. The PIO replied on 7.12.2010 providing point wise information. The applicant filed first
appeal on 8.1.11 seeking further clarification on the information provided. The Appellate Authority
vide order dated 14.2.11 directed the PIO to re examine the issue and verify the records and to
provide the information. Still not received any reply the Applicant filed second appeal before the
Commission.
Decision
2. During the hearing the Applicant sought further clarification on the delay caused as sought against
points 2 and 3 of the RTI Application. He questioned about the rules under which the said Authority
could treat a period of 4 days as a delay on the part of the rightful claimant though this is not
permissible as per establishment procedures and rules of the Ministry of Home Affairs . He also
sought the information against point 5, the rules under which the concerned officer had released the
amount to the non claimant. The Applicant also wanted to know why contradictory information has
been provided to him by the PIO with regard to the alleged delay of four days on the part of the rightful
claimant .
3. The Commission after hearing both sides, directs the PIO to provide any further information available
with the Public Authority with respect to the Appellant’s first and second appeals, substantiated with
copies of relevant documents. Information to be provided by 16th August 2011.
4. The PIO is also directed to showcause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him/her for the
delay in providing the information. The response to reach the Commission by 16 August, 2011.
5. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc
1. Shri S S Vohra
4572, Bldg No. 129
New Tilak Nagar
Chembur
Mumbai – 4000 089.
2. The Public Information Officer
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
Pay & Accounts Office (IRLA)
AGCR Building, I.P.Estate
New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority
Railway Rrecruitment Board
Divisional office Compound
Mumbai Central
Mumbai – 400 008.
4. Officer Incharge, NIC.
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, giving
(1) copy of RTI application, (2) copy of PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellant Authority, (4) copy
of the Commission’s decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding
the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided