Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr. Akshansh Singhal vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 28 October, 2010

Central Information Commission
Mr. Akshansh Singhal vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 28 October, 2010
                             CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                 Club Building (Near Post Office)
                               Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                      Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                                              Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000980/9942
                                                                                Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000980

Complainant                                        :                  Mr. Akshansh Singhal
                                                                      383, Sri Gopal Nagar
                                                                      Gopal Pura By-Pass Road
                                                                      Jaipur-302005, Rajasthan

Respondent                                          :                PIO and RPFC-I
                                                                     Employee's Provident Fund
                                                                     Organization, Ministry of Labour
                                                                     Govt. of India, Regional Office-I
                                                                     CSD, 341, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan
                                                                     Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051

Facts

arising from the Complaint:

Mr. Akshansh Singhal had filed a RTI application with the RPFC II, Mumbai, on
24/05/2010. Thereafter, aggrieved by the reply dated 18/06/2010 provided by the PIO, the
Applicant filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission.

On perusal of the file, it is observed that the IPO of the RTI application dated
24/05/2010 was drawn in favour of CPIO & RPFC II, Mumbai, which is clearly incongruous
with the rule 3 mentioned in the RTI Rules, 2005. Rule 3 of the RTI Rules, 2005 verbatim
provides the following:

‘A request for obtaining information under sub-section (1) of section 6 shall be
accompanied by an application of rupees ten by way of cash against proper receipt or by
demand draft or bankers cheque [or Indian Postal Order] payable to the Accounts Officer of
the public authority.’

Therefore, by a simple reading of the above rule, with regard to the present case, it can
be inferred that the applicant should have drawn an IPO in favour of the Accounts Officer of
the public authority, adhering to the RTI Rules, 2005 and not in favour of CPIO & RPFC II,
Mumbai.

The Commission further notes that the reply of the CPIO is superfluous for the same
reason as mentioned above.

Hence, in the light of the above, the present complaint stands dismissed.

Decision:

The Complaint is dismissed.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free of cost as per section 7(6) of RTI, Act, 2005.

ShaileshGandhi
Information Commissioner
28th October, 2010

(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(JA)