CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. - CIC/WB/C/2009/000369 dated: 20.07.'09
Right to Information Act- Section 18
Complainant: Prof. Santosh Kumar
Respondent: Central Empowered Committee, New Delhi.
Decision
Announced 26.2.’10
The Commission has received a complaint from Prof. Santosh Kumar of
Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh praying as follows:-
“Direct the Centrally Empowered Committee to furnish a
proper reply, that can be understood by me and other literate
persons to whom I have shown this response of the Centrally
Empowered Committee. Action under the RTI Act be initiated
against the PIO for sending meaningless information
amounting to denial of information.”
That question seeking information regarding action taken on a
representation dated 02.01.2009 sent by the complainant to the Centrally
Empowered Committee appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
requesting them to drop the Renuka Dam Project and a date by which he might
expect a reply thereon, was originally asked through an application of
10.02.2009. This was followed by a further application of 10/14.3.’09 seeking
reasons together with file noting “for allowing a proposed dam over Giri river at
Renuka”. In his response of 18.05.2009, the CPIO Shri Sanjeev Chadha,
Member Secretary, Central Empowered Committee, New Delhi sent a copy of a
the CEC report of an expert committee on the State Govt. of HP’s proposal for
construction of Renuka Dam, which was submitted to Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India. The complainant, being aggrieved, has filed a complaint with the
Commission alleging that the response sent by the CPIO refers not to the project
in question but to an ITBP Report on a road link in Ladakh, J&K. He has,
however, not moved an appeal u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act before the 1st appellate
authority of the Committee.
1
Complainant Prof. Santosh Kumar, on getting what he considered
irrelevant information from the CPIO, could have preferred his first appeal
through the channel available to him u/s Section 19(1) of the Act, which has not
actually been done in the present case. Because the 1st appellate authority has
not addressed the questions of complainant, which are of direct concern to his
Committee and the complainant has pleaded no ground for making a direct
complaint before us, the Commission has decided to remand this complaint to
the First Appellate Authority, Central Empowered Committee, New Delhi to
dispose of the complaint of Prof. Santosh Kumar treating it as an appeal u/s
19(1) of the RTI Act, within ten working days of the date of receipt of this
Decision Notice, under intimation to Shri PKP Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar, Central
Information Commission.
We also note that the information sought had us 7 (1) become due by
12.3. ’09, whereas a reply has been sent only on 18.5.’09 The appellate authority
should, together with his disposal of the appeal therefore satisfy himself on this
issue in accordance with Sec 20 of the RTI Act 2005, and if so required approach
this Commission for initiation of proceedings for imposition of penalty and/ or
recommending appropriate disciplinary action.
If not satisfied with the information provided on his 1st appeal, complainant
Prof. Santosh Kumar will be free to move a 2nd appeal before us as per Sec 19
(3).
Announced this twenty-sixth day of February, 2010. Notice of this decision
be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner)
26.02.2010
2
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.
(PK Shreyaskar)
Jt. Registrar
26.02.2010
3