CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No CIC/WB/C/2008/00218` dated: 07.03.'08
Right to Information Act 2005-Section 18(1) (e)
Complainant: Shri Didar Singh
Respondent: Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions.
Announced 10.8.'09
Facts
:-
By an application dated 29.08.2007 Shri Didar Singh of Chandigarh
sought copies of the order of the Full Bench of CAT Chandigarh dated
17.03.2007 from the Central Public Information Officer, Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions. However we find no evidence regarding
submission of any fee along with the application. In his response dated
29.11.2007 to a reminder submitted by Shri Didar Singh on 12.11.2007 this time
along with the requisite fee, requesting a reply to his application of 29.08.2007,
the CPIO Shri Sukar Singh Under Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions asked complainant Shri Didar Singh to send a copy of
the application dated 29.08.2007 to enable him to respond as the application was
not traceable in that department. Upon this, Shri Didar Singh has moved a
complaint before us alleging that the requisite information was knowingly not
supplied by the CPIO whereas receipt of the said application in the department
was acknowledged by receipt issued by the department, thus amounting to his
being provided false information. The complainant has attached a copy of this
acknowledgement receipt initialed on 31/8/’07 on the receipt card stapled to the
letter.
Admitting the complaint of Shri Didar Singh u/s 18(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005,
the Commission issued notice on 29.06.2009 to the CPIO, Ministry of Personnel
Public Grievances & Pension, New Delhi to submit his comments on the
complaint. In response, the CPIO Shri Amitabh Dwivedi US submitted his
comments on 08.07.2009 with a copy endorsed to complainant Shri Didar Singh.
The CPIO has informed the Commission that upon obtaining the application of
1
Shri Didar Singh on 23.01.2008 the same was transferred to the CPIO
Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance under intimation to the
complainant as the information sought was available with that Dep’t.
Decision
It appears from the facts available on the record that the application dated
29.08.2007 of the complainant was duly submitted along with the requisite fee.
However, since this has been received in the Dep’t the complainant should have
been suitably informed. Copies of acknowledgements enclosed with the petition
as a proof of receipt of the letters submitted by the complainant under RTI Act,
clearly indicate that the letters were indeed received in the department. Remedy,
then, should rightly have been sought within the Dep’t through an appeal u/s 19
(1), which has not been done. Besides, appropriate action on the application,
even though unnecessarily delayed, now seems to have been taken by the
CPIO, after obtaining the necessary fee
Nevertheless, the Commission has decided to remand this complaint to
First Appellate Authority Shri Geeta Ram Director (PW) Department of
Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi, who is directed vide
Sec 19 (8) (a) of the Act to enquire into the reasons for loss/misplacement of an
RTI application duly received in the Dep’t, and in consultation with JS Shri Sarkar
of the RTI Cell of the Ministry, institute corrective measures to ensure fail safe
methods of receipt and disposal of RTI requests to bring these in closer
conformity with the Act. This exercise will be completed within ten working days
from the date of receipt of this decision, under intimation to Shri Pankaj
Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar, Central Information Commission.
Announced. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner)
10.08.2009
2
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.
(PK Shreyaskar)
Jt. Registrar
10.08.2009
3