CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Adjunct to Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00441 dated 18-8-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Complainant: Shri B.R. Manhas, Jammu
Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
ORDER
In our decision of 25-1-2008 we had directed as follows: –
“The Commission has decided to admit Shri Manhas’s appeal
petition as a complaint u/s 18 (1) (c) of the said Act and hereby
directs the Superintendent of Police & Central Public Information
Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation, SCR-III, Yashwant Place,
Chanakyapuri, New Delhi to respond to the request for information
to complainant Shri B R Manhas within 15 working days from the
date of receipt of this decision.
The CPIO, CBI is further directed to show cause as to why a
penalty of Rs.250/- per day from the date when the information fell
due i.e. 06.04.2007 to the date when the information is actually
supplied, not exceeding Rs.25, 000/- should not be imposed on
him/her under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The CPIO will submit
his/her written submission on or before 11.02.2008.”
Accordingly, we have received a copy of the response sent by CPIO, Shri
R.S. Dhankar, SP, CBI, SCR-3, New Delhi, dated 7-2-08 addressed to Shri B.R.
Manhas, complainant in which CPIO has stated as follows:
“In this connection it is to inform that the reply of your application
dated 6.3.2007 addressed to Shri J. S. Waraich, SSP was sent to
you within the stipulated period of 30 days vide this office registered
letter No. 2399/5/5/2005/SCRIII/ND dated 5.4.2007 on the address
mentioned in your application dated 6.3.2007 but the envelop was
received back undelivered with the report of the postal Dep’t. that
“addressee left without address so return to sender”. The
photocopy of the envelop bearing postal remarks as well as the
photocopy of reply dated 5.4.2007 are enclosed.
On receipt of your application dated 26.4.2007 addressed to Shri
Pankaj Kumar Singh, Dy. Inspr. General of Police and Appellate
Authority, reply was again sent to you vide this office registered
letter No. 3683/5/5/2005/SCR.III/ND dated 10.5.2007 on the1
address mentioned in your application dated 26.4.2007 but the
envelop containing the said letter again received back undelivered
with the same report of the postal Dep’t. that “addressee left without
address so return to sender”. The photocopy of the envelop
bearing postal remarks as well as the photocopy of the envelop
bearing postal remarks as well as the photocopy of reply dated
10.5.2007 are enclosed.
From the above, it may be seen that the replies of your both the
applications dated 6.3.2007 and 26.4.2007 were sent to you within
the stipulated period of the address mentioned in your applications
under reference.”
However, in a representation dated 5-3-08 complainant Shri Manhas has
submitted as below:
“In spite of the directions of the Hon’ble Commission to CPIO, CBI,
no information on the request forth came, and instead by his letter
dated 7th Feb 2008 the present CPIO, CBI mentioned two earlier
letters one dated 5.4.2007 and other dated 10.5.2007 and other
dated 10.5.2005 which he claimed to have been sent to the
complainant and received back undelivered. Photocopy of the said
letter was also annexed with their letter. Copy of letter dated 7th
Feb 2008 is closed as Annexure C1.
That the claim of the CBI in their letter dated 7.2.’08 that the
requested information was supplied to the complainant on 5.4.2007
itself, is false and amounted to mislead the Hon’ble Commission as
perusal of the letter dated 5.4.2007 which is purported to have been
sent to the applicant/ complainant shows that no information as
requested by the complainant’s letter dated 6.3.2007 was
supplied1.”
From the plea highlighted by us above it will be clear that Shri Manhas is
not satisfied with the response to his application of 6-3-07. Because the
statement of CPIO is supported by photocopy of envelopes bearing postal
remarks, we have no cause to doubt the submission of CPIO that the information
supplied did not reach the complainant thereby prompting him to move his
complaint dated 18-8-07 before us. This cannot therefore become ground for
penalty.
1
Emphasis ours
2
st
Because the 1 appellate authority has not addressed the questions of
complainant regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the CPIO’s response to the
application of 6.3.’07, which are of direct concern to his public authority and
because complainant has pleaded no ground for making a direct complaint to us
u/s 18, or apprehension of malafide on the part of the Department, the
Commission has decided to treat the representation of 5.3.’08 as a 1st appeal
and remand this appeal to Shri Zaki Ahmed, DIG, CBI, NDMC Building,
st
Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, 1 appellate authority who is directed to dispose of the
appeal within 15 working days from the date of receipt of this decision, under
intimation to Shri PK Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar, Central Information Commission.
If not satisfied with the information so provided, complainant Shri B.R. Manhas
nd
will be free to move a fresh 2 appeal before us as per Sec 19 (3)
Announced, Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
15-9-2008
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.
(PKP Shreyaskar)
Jt. Registrar
15-9-2008
3