CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. - CIC/WB/C/2009/000057 dated: 19.02.'09
Right to Information Act- Section 18(1) (b)
Complainant: Shri Mani Ram Sharma
Respondent: Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), New Delhi.
Decision announced 12.3.'10
Facts
:-
The Commission has received a complaint from Shri Mani Ram Sharma of
Churu, Rajasthan that his request under RTI Act, 2005 submitted to the Central
Public Information Officer, Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, seeking
information regarding action taken on his application sent on 29.08.2009 for
registering a complaint against DIG, CBI, BSFC, New Delhi for denying to
register a case against State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, together with other
related information, has not been responded to even though the same was duly
submitted along with the requisite fee, dated 29.08.2008. Similarly, no order has
been passed by the first appellate authority of CVC on his appeal u/s 19(1) dated
29.09.2008.
Admitting the complaint of Shri Sharma under Section 18(1) (b) of RTI Act,
2005 the Commission served notice on 06.01.2010 on CPIO, Central Vigilance
Commission, New Delhi for furnishing comments on the complaint. In response,
CPIO Shri R. Ravichandran, Advisor, CVC has submitted his comments of
18.01.2010 with a copy also endorsed to complainant. CPIO has informed the
Commission that not only was the application dated 29.08.2008 of the
complainant, which was received in the CVC on 23.09.2008, responded to by the
then CPIO vide letter dated 06.10.2008 but his appeal dated 29.09.2008 was
also disposed of by the 1st appellate authority after considering all the aspects of
the case vide order dated 30.10.2008. The CPIO has enclosed the copies of
response of the CPIO and order passed by the appellate authority with the
comments. The complainant has also filed a rejoinder against the comments
stating that the CPIO has provided only one information regarding action taken
1
on his complaint dated 29.08.2008 whereas, the rest of the information sought
has still not provided.
Decision
From a perusal of the file and the comments submitted by the CPIO, it is
evident that, contrary to the complaint of Shri Mani Ram Sharma the CPIO has
indeed responded to the request of complainant whose 1st appeal has also been
disposed of by the appellate authority and that within the time mandated by law.
Hence, the complaint against non-response to the request does not stand and in
light of this the present complaint can only be dismissed.
On the other hand the complainant has pleaded that the CPIO has
responded against one point only whereas, others have remained unaddressed.
For that the complainant is hereby advised to approach the 1st appellate authority
because the appellate authority of CVC has not addressed the issues which has
now been raised by the complainant through his rejoinder filed before the
Commission and if not satisfied with the information provided on his 1st appeal,
complainant Shri Sharma will be free to move a 2nd appeal before us as per
section 19(3).
Announced this twelfth day of March 2010. Notice of this decision be given
free of cost to the parties.
Wajahat Habibullah
(Chief Information Commissioner)
12.03.2010
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.
12.03.2010
2