Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/WB/C/2008/00071-SM dated 05.10.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 30.03.2009
Appellant : Cmde. Subhash Kapoor
Respondent : Deptt. Of Ex-servicemen Welfare, Ministry of Defence
The Appellant is not present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following are present:-
(i) Lt. Col. A.K. Naik, Joint Director
(ii) Shri C.N. Ganjoo, Director
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant, in his application dated 5 October 2007, had requested the CPIO
in the Ministry of Defence for a number of information in respect of claims for medical
reimbursement submitted by him earlier in March and April 2007. The CPIO, in his letter
dated 30 January 2008, provided detailed information on each of the items listed in the
original application. In the meanwhile, not receiving a response from the CPIO within the
stipulated period, he had already filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority on
23 November 2007. Since the first Appellate Authority did not pass any order, he has,
therefore, come before the CIC in second appeal.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant was not present in spite of notice. It is noted
that he had filed the second appeal before the CPIO had sent him the required
information. We compared the information provided with the information sought and
found that the CPIO, though belatedly, has provided very detailed information on each
count. Therefore, as far as the information sought is concerned, all of it has already been
provided and there is nothing more to be given.
4. However, the question of delay in supplying the information remains. The
Respondent submitted that the information sought was not held in the Department of Ex-
servicemen Welfare and had to be collected from the ECHS, the real custodian of all
CIC/WB/C/2008.00071-SM
such information. He further submitted that since some of the information required
extensive consultation of files at the ECHS level, that organisation took quite some time
in compiling the information and sending it to the CPIO concerned. Only after the
information was received from the ECHS that the CPIO sent the information to the
Appellant. He submitted that there was no deliberate attempt on his part to delay or
withhold any information. We tend to agree with this explanation of the CPIO specially in
view of the fact that the Appellant wanted to know about all the medical bills reimbursed
during that particular period, the compilation of which could easily take a lot of time.
What the CPIO, in such circumstances should have done was to communicate to the
Appellant part of the information readily available and send the remaining information
when it was finally received.
5. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed off.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/WB/C/2008.00071-SM