Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00917-SM dated 23.06.2007
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 20.10.2008
Appellant - Shri Girdhari Lal
Respondents - Additional CDA (PD), Meerut Cantt, MOD
ORDER
This is the second appeal filed by Shri Girdhari Lal of Vishwa Yuvak
Kendra, New Delhi against the order of the First Appellant Authority. This
appeal dated 23.6.2007, had been received in the Commission on 4.7.2007 and
came to us on transfer in September, 2008. The brief facts of the case are as
under.
2. Shri Girdhari Lal approached the CPIO in the Ministry of Defence on
14.3.2007 seeking certain information regarding payment of arrears of family
pension granted to his mother after the death of his father who served in the
Indian Army. The CPIO in the Ministry of Defence forwarded this case on
29.3.2007 to the CPIO concerned in the CDA (PD), Meerut Cantt. The Additional
CDA/CPIO in the Office of the CDA (PD), Meerut Cantt, in turn, wrote to the
DPDO, Jhunjhunu on 11.4.2007 asking for complete details of the case.
Thereafter, on 10.5.2007, the CPIO in the CDA(PD), Meerut Cantt, after
obtaining the information from the DPDO, Jhunjhunu, wrote to Shri Girdhari Lal
in great detail about why the arrears of family pension had not been paid. It is to
be noted that the CPIO did not mention the name of the First Appellate Authority
in her reply.
3. Not satisfied with the above reply, Shri Girdhari Lal approached the CPIO
in the Ministry of Defence deeming his request as the first appeal and seeking the
information he had originally applied for. Besides, he also referred to the delay in
receiving the information which in any case was unsatisfactory.
4. It is not clear if the CPIO of the Ministry of Defence was indeed the First
Appellate Authority. However, the CPIO, in response to the first appeal wrote to
the CPIO in the CDA(PD), Meerut Cantt. to supply the desired information
quickly. The CPIO in the Office of the CDA(PD), Meerut Cantt. endorsed a copy
of the same information she had supplied earlier.
5. Now the matter has been brought up before us in second appeal. The
appellant had, in his original application to the CPIO, wanted six items of
information. While it is appreciated that the CPIOs down the line in the Ministry
of Defence and the Office of the CDA took pains to provide a lot of details on his
request, the reply given by the CPIO, however, did not reflect specific information
on each of the six items.
6. The First Appellate Authority, on his part, also did not hear the case and
routinely instructed the CPIO to furnish the information and the CPIO, once
again, mechanically forwarded a copy of the original reply given by her. So much
effort and correspondence were wasted without giving any satisfaction to the
appellant.
7. In view of the fact that the First Appellate Authority did not hear the
appeal, we remand this case to it with the direction that it should ensure that
specific information on each of the six items sought by the appellant be provided
to him within 15 working days from the receipt of this order. He should also find
out and report on why the request of the appellant for information in the first
place took so long for processing and if any one was specifically responsible for
this delay. The compliance be reported to us immediately after furnishing the
information to the appellant.
8. The appeal is thus disposed off. Copies of this order be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar