CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. - CIC/WB/C/2009/000459 & 486 dated 25.08.'09
Right to Information Act- Section 18
Complainant: Shri M. V. Ruparelia
Respondent: Prime Minister's Office (PMO), New Delhi.
Decision announced 9.8.'10
Facts
:-
The Commission has received two complaints from Shri M. V. Ruparelia of
Thane, Maharashtra that his request submitted to the Central Public Information
Officer, Prime Minister’s Office, New Delhi, seeking information regarding the
date of receiving the complainant’s letter dated 27.05.2009 sent to the PMO and
action taken thereupon together with information regarding
Instructions/Procedure/Office Orders indicating how representations to P.M. or
PMO are to be dealt with and disposed of and other related information, has not
been responded to, even though the same was duly submitted by remitting the
requisite fee in Mira Road Post Office, dated 08.07.2009. Shri M. V. Ruparelia
has further alleged that no response was given on his 1st appeal filed on
17.08.2009.
We find that both complaints are identical. They have thus been
processed together. Admitting the complaint of Shri Ruparelia, the Commission
served notice on CPIO, Prime Minister’s Office, New Delhi on 24.06.2010
separately for furnishing comments on both complaints. In response, CPIO, Ms.
Sanjukta Ray, Deputy Secretary, Prime Minister’s Office, New Delhi has
submitted her comments on 07.07.2010 with a copy endorsed to complainant.
She has informed the Commission that the application of the complainant dated
08.07.2010 was forwarded by Mira Road Post Office but since the
communication received from the post office did not mention payment of fees by
any of the prescribed modes like IPO number or amount paid by the complainant,
the application was not considered valid as a request for information and the
1
complainant was informed accordingly by the CPIO, vide letter dated 17.08.2010
in response to the letter dated 17.08.2009 of the complainant addressed to the
first appellate authority. The CPIO has further informed that under intimation to
the complainant the Post Master, Mira Road was informed that the fee as stated
by them to have been enclosed with the application vide their letter 07.10.2009
and 01.12.2009, was not found enclosed and they were requested to confirm
payment of fee by the complainant so that the applications could be considered
but no response was received from the Post Office. The CPIO has enclosed the
copies of relevant documents with her comments. Complainant has filed no
rejoinder to the comments of CPIO.
Decision
From a perusal of the facts now available before us, it is clear that the
communication received from the Post Office, Mira Road, does not explain the
details of the fee paid by the complainant and hence the explanation of CPIO for
not treating the application valid under RTI can be justified. In light of the above
the complainant is hereby advised to send his application afresh along with
requisite fee to obtain the desired information. The present complaint is however
without substance and is hereby dismissed
Announced on this the ninth day of August 2010 in open chamber. Notice
of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Wajahat Habibullah
(Chief Information Commissioner)
09.08.2010
Authenticated true copy, additional copies of order shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charge prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of
this Commission.
Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar
Joint Registrar.
09.08.2010
2
3