CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No.- CIC/WB/C/2008/00416
Right to Information Act- Section 18 (1) (b)
Complainant: Shri Brij Bhushan
Respondent: Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)
Facts
The Commission has received a complaint from Shri Brij Bhushan,
SI/Exe of CISF Unit IGI, New Delhi that his request under RTI Act, 2005
submitted to the Director General, CISF, New Delhi seeking information on
the reasons for delay in reimbursement of medical bills and such other related
issues has not been responded to by the CPIO, although the same was duly
submitted along with the requisite fee dated 31-1-2007. Shri Brij Bhushan has
moved a first appeal before the Director General, CISF, New Delhi on 22-3-
2007 apprising him of not having received any information even after lapse of
50 days. A further request was made to the First Appellate Authority to take
up his matter sympathetically and reimburse his medical bill or provide
information regarding his request under RTI Act 2005.
Admitting the complaint of Shri Brij Bhushan under section 18 (1) (b) of
the RTI Act 2005, the Commission issued a notice to the CPIO, CISF, New
Delhi for furnishing comments on the complaint. In response the CPIO, CISF
Shri Ajeet Singh IG /Adm. has submitted his comments informing the
Commission of the action taken by all concerned with regard to the grievance
of the appellant regarding reimbursement of his medical bill. With regard to
the RTI application however, he has admitted failure by the concerned dealing
assistants to respond. He accounts for the failure by submitting that this can
be ascribed to the ADIG Office (airport) arising from its failure “to distinguish
between the plethora of applications sent by the applicant regarding
reimbursement of his medical claim during the last five years and the
applications submitted under RTI, as the subject was the same.” Further he
has submitted that the CPIO and the first appellate authority cannot be faulted
for not replying to the Complainant as the appeal was never received by their
office. A copy of these comments was also endorsed to the complainant.
1
DECISION NOTICE
Because the First Appellate Authority has not addressed the questions
of complainant which are of direct concern to this complaint, the Commission
has decided to remand this appeal to the First Appellate authority, CISF,
Head Quarter 13, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi to dispose of the
appeal of Shri Brij Bhushan within 10 working days from the date of receipt of
this decision under intimation to Shri Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar,
Central Information Commission. However, in this context, he will ensure that
his disposal is commensurate with Sec 24 (1), in light of the fact that the CISF
is listed at S. no. 12 of the Second Schedule of the RTI Act If not satisfied with
the information provided on first appeal, the complainant Shri Brij Bhushan will
be free to move a second appeal before us as per section 19 (3) of the RTI
Act, 2005.
It is, however, noted that there is admission of failure on the part of the
CISF who have not responded to the applicant, even though fee was duly
paid. Although it has been informed by the CPIO that neither he nor any of
his officers received this application for information, the RTI regime in the
CISF clearly needs review. Notwithstanding therefore that the CISF is an
Organisation exempt u/s 24 (1) of the RTI Act, it is obligatory on the part of
the organisation to put in place a system for receiving RTI applications and
appeals which could contain allegations of corruption and human rights
violations. Albeit for this reason we do not propose recourse to Sec 20 of the
Act, the Director General, CISF will take stock of the existing RTI regimen in
his organisation, make necessary adjustments and send us a compliance
report within 20 working days from the date of receipt of this decision notice.
Announced. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Wajahat Habibullah
(Chief Information Commissioner)
26-5-2009
2
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.
26-5-2009
3