CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000580 dated 26.5.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri R. S. Verma
Respondent - Central Information Commission
Date of hearing : 7.7.2010
Decision announced : 13.7.2010
Facts
:
By an application of 2.2.09 Shri R. S. Verma applied to CPIO Shri Tarun
Kumar, Jr. Secretary, Central Information Commission, seeking the following
information regarding his special leave for appeal to review and appeal u/s 18 (1)
(e):
“1. Registration No. of appeal.
2. Status of appeal.
3. Defect(s) / deficiency(ies) in the appeal, if any, which need to
be rectified by appellant.”
To this, Shri R. S. Verma received a response dated 2.3.09 from Shri M.
C. Sharma, Assistant Registrar informing him as follows:
“It is informed that with regard to your special leave for appeal to
review the decision dated 1.12.2008, a reply has already been sent
to you vide our letter No. CIC/MA/A/2008/00942 dated 24.2.2008
(copy enclosed for your reference)
a) No separate Registration is given on applications for review.
b) Your application for Review stands disposed of.
c) No information can be given in view of the position explained
above.”
Not satisfied with this response, Shri Verma appealed before Shri
Mohammad Haleem Khan, Secretary & First Appellate Authority, Central
Information Commission on 16.3.09 pleading that “in view of the above, the
information provided vide letter dated 24.2.09 to the effect that “your application
for Review stands disposed off” is believed to be incorrect, incomplete and
misleading.”
1
Upon this, by his order of 26.5.09, Appellate Authority Shri L. C. Singhi,
Registrar, Central Information Commission has directed as follows:
“On perusal of the file, it is found that Shri M. C. Sharma, Assistant
Registrar, Central Information Commission in response to
appellant’s RTI application has provided whatever information was
available with him on record and that there was no denial
whatsoever. It also cannot be stated that the information provided
was “incomplete” in any manner. The appellant may, if he so
desires, inspect the file in order to obtain the requested information
during the working hours of the Commission. Shri M. C. Sharma,
Assistant Registrar, Central Information Commission is directed to
show the concerned file to the appellant for his inspection.”
This order was passed subsequent to a notice of hearing issued on
11.5.09 requesting the appellant to appear in person on 20.5.09. The Registrar
has noted that “the appellant did not appear in person to submit his arguments.
As no telephone number of the appellant was available on record, he could not
be contacted telephonically. The matter was, therefore, decided ex parte based
on the material available on record.”
Appellant Shri R. S. Verma’s prayer in second appeal before us is as
below:
“It is very humbly requested that CPO / Ist Appellate Authority
are directed to furnish complete and correct information
without charging any fee.”
However, this is based on the plea in the second appeal moved on
21.4.09 i.e. before the orders in First Appeal, that “Response has not been
received from 1st Appellate Authority so far although more than 30 days have
passed.”
The appeal was heard by videoconference on 7.7.2010. The following are
present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Ranchi
Shri R. S. Verma
Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi
Shri Tarun Kumar, Jt. Secy. & F.A.A.
2
Shri M. C. Sharma, US & CPIO
Shri Tarun Kumar submitted that the appeal was received on 26.3.’09
after which the Appellate Authority has changed, which accounted for the delay
in responding to the First Appeal by the Appellate Authority Shri L. C. Singhi.
Respondent Shri M. C. Sharma submitted that in fact the applicant’s petition for
submitting Special Leave Petition to review the decision on the various grounds
had been responded to on 24.2.09, as follows:
“This is with reference to your application No. nil dated 1.12.2008
submitted to the Commission to review the decision of CIC. In this
connection, it is informed that you should inspect the records and
obtain the information. You may approach the Commission again,
if any information is refused. It is again pointed out that there is no
provision under the Act for redressal of the grievances relating to
service matter.”
Appellant Shri Verma on the other hand submitted that he has not
received any response to the SLP to review the petition and appeal u/s 18(1)(e)
submitted on 12.1.08.
DECISION NOTICE
The correspondence in appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2008/00942 has been
examined. Insofar as the response of 24.2.09 is concerned, which purports to
dispose of the petition of 1.12.08, the letter of Assistant Registrar Shri M. C.
Sharma does not even mention the request for review or appeal u/s 18(1)(e) but
straightway offers inspection of records, which have not even been asked for.
From a perusal of the records, however, it is clear that this offer has been made
as a facility in case appellant Shri Verma was not satisfied with the decision and
its compliance. To clarify this position, therefore, file noting on page 3-N of file
No. CIC/MA/A/2008/00942, which discusses this petition and carries the orders
of IC Shri M. M. Ansari on that petition, will be conveyed to appellant Shri Verma
together with this decision notice. The appeal is thus allowed to this extent
3
Although, therefore, we hold that in fact the CPIO Shri M. C. Sharma has
indeed supplied the information sought by appellant Shri Verma to him, Assistant
Registrar, it is also correct that the information supplied was not complete. There
is no evidence to show, however, that such incomplete information was
‘knowingly’ given, which would have rendered CPIO subject to a penalty. There
will therefore be no cost.
Reserved in the hearing to enable examination of the original file, this
decision is announced in open chambers on this 13th day of July, 2010. Notice of
this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
13.7.2010
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.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
13.7.2010
4