CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No CIC/WB/C/2008/00256 dated: 22.04.'08
Right to Information Act 2005-Section 18(1) (b)
Complainant: Shri M. Narayanan
Respondent: Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
Decision Announced 24.12.'09
Facts
:-
The Commission has received a complaint from Shri M. Narayanan of
Kolkata, West Bengal that his request dated 08.03.2007 under RTI Act, 2005
seeking information regarding details of a particular investigation submitted to
Central Public Information Officer, Prime Minister’s Office, New Delhi and which
was further transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to the CPIO, Central Vigilance
Commission, New Delhi on 22.03.2007 has not been responded to, even though
the same was duly submitted along with the requisite fee. The complainant has
not, however, enclosed the copy of the application dated 08.03.2007 with the
petition to CIC.
Admitting the complaint of Shri Narayanan u/s 18(1) (b) of RTI Act, the
Commission served notice on the CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission, New
Delhi on 07.09.2009 seeking comments on the complaint. But as ascertained by
the Registry of the Commission through the records available in the data base,
no response has been received in the Commission from the CPIO, Central
Vigilance Commission. However, complainant Shri M. Narayanan has submitted
before us through a petition of 23.10.2009 that a copy of comments dated
16.09.2009 addressed to the Commission from the CPIO, CVC has been
received by him and he has expressed his disagreement with the plea taken by
the CPIO, CVC on certain issues pleading that ‘prompt action’ has not been
taken on his complaint. He has also alleged that the CPIO, Prime Minister’s
Office, New Delhi has “forgotten to transfer my first appeal dated 03.04.2007 sent
to them”, presumably to the Central Vigilance Commission.
Decision Notice
1
Because of the sparse supporting facts available in the record, the
Commission is unable to arrive at a conclusion on the issue of providing of
information regarding which the present complaint has been filed by complainant
Shri Narayanan. As posited in the subsequent rejoinder filed by him, it seems
that he had requested for a detailed investigation report on his complaint sent to
the CVC on 29.06.2006 through his application under RTI, which was submitted
to CPIO, PMO on 08.03.2007and was transferred to the CPIO, CVC by CPIO
Shri Kamal Dayani Director PMO on 22.03.2007 however the complainant
himself is not sure regarding his request because he has requested the
Commission to send a copy of his appeal application for reference and use.
Nevertheless it was the obligation of the CVC, MD Indian Rare Earths Ltd.,
Manavalakurichy, TN and Comptroller & Auditor General New Delhi ‘for
appropriate action’, which was received by CVC from the CPIO Prime Minister’s
Office, and on getting no response, the complainant should have filed an appeal
u/s 19(1) with the first appellate authority of Central Vigilance Commission, not
with the appellate authority Prime Minister’s Office.
In light of the above the complainant is hereby advised that as he has
found the reply of 16.09.2007, received by him in response to the complaint
notice of the Commission, unsatisfactory, he might approach the first appellate
authority of Central Vigilance Commission and consequently if, not satisfied with
the information provided on his 1st appeal, complainant Shri M. Narayanan will be
free to move a 2nd appeal before us as per Sec 19 (3) with copies of all
enclosures. There appears no ground for our intercession at this stage. The
present complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Announced this twenty fourth day of December 2009. Notice of this
decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner)
24-12-2009
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
24-12-2009
3