CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/001212 dated 11-6-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri M. Yogeshwar Raj
Respondent - Central Information Commission (CIC)
Decision announced 15-01-2010
FACTS
By an application of 14.3.2008 Shri M. Yogeshwar Raj of Hyderabad, Andhra
Pradesh applied to the CPIO, CIC seeking the following information:-
“i) Status of the penalty show cause notice issued vide Decision
No. 1897/IC(A)/2008 dated 31.1.2008 under S. 18 (1)
(complaints) of the RTI Act, 2005 by the Hon’ble CIC to the
CPIO Shri Ajay Thakur, DGM-HRD, Air India, Mumbai.
(ii) Kindly supply the action taken report/ correspondence at you
end with photo copies.
(iii) If no action taken, reasons thereof with names and designation.”
The copy of this application on file is unsigned. Nevertheless, having
received the application on 24.3.2008 CPIO Shri Tarun Kumar, Joint Secretary,
Central Information Commission sent the following information to appellant Shri M.
Yogeshwar Raj:-
“Para 1 (i): Status of the penalty show cause vide decision No.
1897/IC(A)/2008 dated 30.1.2008 is that, after receiving the
reply the penalty has been dropped by the Hon’ble Information
commissioner with the following remarks:-
‘In view of the explanation submitted by the respondent and the
facts brought out to our notice about the appellant, the penalty
proceeding is dropped.’Sd/- (M. M. Ansari)
Information Commissioner
3.4.2008Para 1 (ii) & (iii): You are welcome to inspect the file and take
photocopies on mutually convenient dated and time after paying
the requisite fee.”
1
However, on not receiving this information Shri M. Yogeshwar Raj moved an
appeal before the Appellate Authority of this Commission on 22.4.2008 in response
to which by his order of 30.6.2008 Mohammed Haleem Khan, Secretary, CIC has
found as follows on the issue not considered adequate by appellant Shri M.
Yogeshwar Raj:-
“(a) The CPIO has appropriately replied stating the fact that the
Information commissioner after due consideration has dropped
the penalty proceedings and also offered to the appellant to
inspect file and take copies thereof. The CPIO as such requires
no further direction in the matter.
(b) However, the CPIO is directed to supply a certified copy of the
stated decision by the Information Commissioner and reiterate
to the appellant his offer to inspect the file.’
In compliance with this order CPIO Shri Tarun Kumar, Jt. Secretary in his
letter of 3.7.2008 provided the information that appellate authority had directed him
to as below:-
(i) “In view of the above directions, I am enclosing herewith a
certified copy of the decision of the Information
Commissioner wherein he has dropped the penalty
proceedings.
(ii) You may inspect the file at a mutually convenient date and
time in consultation with the undersigned on telephone no.
(011-26180514).”
However, in his prayer before us in second appeal Shri M. Yogeshwar Raj
has pleaded as follows;-
“I beg of you to provide me the information I asked for in my
application dated 14.3.2008, and apply the penalty clause for non-
supply of information.’
In the grounds for this prayer appellant Shri M. Yogeshwar Raj has submitted
that he has not received any order from the public authority and specified against the
column on the particular order appealed against that he has not received a response
from the concerned CPIO or from First Appellate Authority.
The appeal was heard on 15-1-2010. Only Shri Tarun Kumar, Jt. Secretary,
CIC is present. Although arrangement had been made for Video Conference with
Hyderabad, appellant Shri M. Yogeshwar Raj is not present, leading us to conclude
that he has not been receiving the communications sent to him by this Commission.
2
DECISION NOTICE
Because appellant Shri M. Yogeshwar Raj appears not to have received
copies of the communications of this Commission in response to his RTI application
and appeals a copy of each of these may be sent to him once more. However, to
determine his correct mailing address he should be contacted by the Addl. Registrar
Shri Tarun Kumar on the telephone, the number of which is available with us but to
which he did not respond on his being called at the time of hearing, or through e-
mail, which address is also available with CPIO. This exercise may be completed
within 10 working days of the date of receipt of this decision notice by the CPIO.
If, on the other hand, Shri M. Yogeshwar Raj finds the information so received
unsatisfactory he will be free to move second appeal before us under section 19 (3)
of the RTI Act.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the
parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
15-1-2010
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 Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
15-1-2010
3