CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2010/000047 dated 14.1.2010.
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri I. K. Saini
Respondent - Central Information Commission (CIC)
Decision Announced 19.3.'10
Facts
:
By an application of 13.8.09 Shri I. K. Saini of NDSE-II, New Delhi applied
to the CPIO, Central Information Commission, seeking the following information:
“Please provide the response of the Hon’ble Information
Commission to my complaint vide Dy. No. 23722/06.05.09 dated
4.5.2009 to take cognizance of the “contentious extra information”
generated by the response and to bring on record the “Adverse
comments of the respondent during the course of the hearing”, for
“Necessary reference in the near future”.
Upon this, CPIO Shri M.C. Sharma, Asstt. Registrar, through his letter of
25.8.09, having received the application on 18.8.09, informed Shri I. K. Saini, as
follows:
“As per record, there is no response to your complaint vide Diary
No. 23722/06-05-09. However, you may inspect the file after fixing
the date & time with the undersigned.”
Upon this, Shri Saini moved an appeal before the First Appellate Authority,
CIC dated 22.9.09 on the following plea:
“It needs to be pointed out that the transparency regarding the
“contentious extra information” generated by the respondent MYNL
could be achieved only after the decision in a second RTI appeal
case at the CIC and which materialized nearly one and half years
after t he same information had been generated. Therefore, it is
very much in keeping with the right to information Act, that the
respondent MTNL may be made, “Accountable” for their action and
a response (Action taken report) be provided.”
In his order of 20th October, 2009 Appellate Authority Shri Tarun Kumar,
Jt. Secy. Has directed as follows:
1
“4. I have gone through the First Appeal of the appellant for RTI
application wherein he has asked for the response of
Hon’ble Commission with regard to his letter dated 4.5.2009
(Dy. No. 23722/6.5.09). A perusal of the appeal shows that
the prayer of the appellant made vide appeal dated 22.9.09
does not strictly fall within the powers of First Appellate
Authority. A perusal of the same makes it clear that there is
a certain level of dissatisfaction on the part of the appellant
from the response given by the Respondents on his case file
No. CIC/MA/A/2008/00843.
5. The CPIO, who is also a Designated Officer may treat the
first appeal of the appellant as a non compliance application
and take appropriate action.
6. The reply of the CPIO is adequate and does not call for any
further direction.
7. With the above observations the appeals stands disposed
of.”
Shri Saini has then moved a second appeal before us with the following
prayer:
“The reply of the CPIO is not a correct assessment of the
application filed by the RTI Act to the CPIO seeking the action
taken on the compliant dated 4.5.09 to the commission seeking to
make the public authority the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
accountable for a RTI matter vide the ID No. 844. It has become
infructuous.”
The appeal was heard on 19.3.10. The following are present:
Appellant
Shri I. K. Saini
Respondents
Shri M. C. Sharma, CPIO / Dy. Registrar
Shri Tarun Kumar, First Appellate AuthorityAppellant Shri Saini submitted that he has been subjected to harassment
by MTNL and he asked the Office of CIC to take action in this regard with regard
to CIC’s Case No. CIC/MA/A/2008/000843. CPIO Shri M. C. Sharma on the
other hand affirmed that no action have been taken on this petition.
DECISION NOTICE
2
The request of appellant Shri Saini in his original application is quite clear.
So is the reply of the CPIO. In fact no action has been taken on that
representation, which concerns what appellant considers being compliance with
the orders of the Information Commission. The fact that Appellate Authority has
advised CPIO that he “may treat the first appeal of the appellant as a non
compliance application”, is only a piece of advice, since Appellate Authority has
himself admitted that he is going beyond the response required under the RTI
Act, only to assist appellant. In light of this, whereas appellant Shri Saini is free
to make a representation to this Commission on any complaint against the
MTNL, the action of the CPIO is fully justified, as held by the Appellate Authority
Shri Tarun Kumar, in keeping with the requirement of the RTI Act 2005. This
appeal is, therefore, unsustainable and is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
19.3.2010
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)
Joint Registrar
19.3.2 010
3