CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Block IV, 4Th Floor, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi-110067
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01209/LS
Applicant: Smt. Susheela Rani
Public Authority: Central Public Works Department
(through Shri A.K. Garg,
Superintending Engineer, Shri
Shankar Dutta, Executive Engineer;
and Shri S.C. Uppal, Finance Officer
to Chief Engineer)
Date of Hearing: 24/10/2008
Date of Decision 24/10/2008
FACTS
OF THE CASE:
By her letter of 08/02/2007, the Appellant had requested for certain
information regarding registration or re-validation of case No.334 pertaining
to one Madan Gopal, Contractor, Class IV etc. Shri Raghubir Singh,
Finance Officer to Chief Engineer (NDZ.III), had furnished some
information to the appellant by his letter of 02/04/2007. Dissatisfied with
the information received, she had filed an Appeal before the Appellate
Authority by her letter of 15/03/2007. The appellate Authority decided the
Appeal by his letter of 28/09/2007.
2. The present Appeal has been filed against the order of the Appellate
Authority.
3. The matter was heard on 24/10/2008. The Appellant did not appear
before the Commission. CPWD was represented by Shri A.K. Garg,
Superintending Engineer; Shri Shankar Dutta, Executive Engineer; and Shri
S.C. Uppal, Finance Officer to Chief Engineer. During the hearing, Shri
Garg submitted that the application of the Appellant was treated with due
urgency and requisite reply was furnished to her. It is worth mentioning
that, in the Appeal filed before the Commission, the Appellant has sought
directions for supply of information, as per para A & B of her letter dated
27/08/2007. On perusal of the letter, I find that the information sought by
the Appellant is as follows:-
“(a) Why your office order No. O.No.48/96 made effective
with effect from 10/10/1996 instead of 14/10/1996.
(b) Why unwanted benefit extended to the contractor?”
4. In this regard, Shri Garg submitted that copies of the relevant records
have already been furnished to the Appellant and its is a matter of record.
Nothing more is required to be done by them. As the Appellant is not
present before the Commission, it is difficult to determine as to what precise
information was wanted from the CPWD which has not been furnished to
her. In the facts and circumstances of the matter, it appears to me that the
request of the Appellant has been attended to with due diligence.
5. However, I may also point out that there had been some delay in the
disposal of the Appeal by the Appellate Authority. It is expected of the
Appellate Authority to dispose of the Appeal in the time frame prescribed in
the RTI Act.
6. The matter is disposed of accordingly.
(M.L. Sharma)
Central 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.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Block IV, 4Th Floor, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi-110067
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01210/LS
Applicant: Smt. Susheela Rani
Public Authority: Central Public Works Department
(through Shri A.K. Garg,
Superintending Engineer, Shri
Shankar Dutta, Executive Engineer,
Shri S.C. Uppal, Finance Officer to
Chief Engineer)
Date of Hearing: 24/10/2008
Date of Decision 24/10/2008
FACTS OF THE CASE:
By her letter of 28/05/2007, the Appellant had filed an application for
some information regarding one Madan Gopal, Class IV Contractor, and
matters related therewith. Finance Officer to Chief Engineer (NDZ.III), had
furnished point-wise reply to the Appellant by his letter of 24/08/2007. Prior
to that, the Appellant, however, had filed an Appeal by her letter of
19/07/2007 before the Appellate Authority regarding non-receipt of
information. The Appellate Authority by his letter of 25/28.09.2007 had
adverted to the letter of Chief Engineer (NDZ.III) of 24/08/2007, in which
complete reply had been given and had also mentioned that furnishing of
information got delayed as it took some time to cull out the information from
relevant records. He had also regretted the delay. The present Appeal has
been filed against the order of the Appellate Authority.
2. The matter was heard on 24/10/2008. The Appellant did not appear
before the Commission. CPWD was represented by Shri A.K. Garg,
Superintending Engineer; Shri Shankar Dutta, Executive Engineer and Shri
S.C. Uppal, Finance Officer to Chief Engineer. The prayer of the Appellant
in the Appeal in hand is that suitable fine may be imposed on the
defaultering officer who has furnished delayed information to her. During
the hearing, Shri Garg submitted that there was some delay in supply of
information to the Appellant as voluminous records had to be scrutinized to
cull out the relevant information. He also submitted a copy of the letter dated
22/10/2008 emanating from Chief Engineer’s Office wherein it has been
stated that the CPIO had permitted Shri R.P. Bura, representative of the
Appellant, to inspect the original records on 04/06/2007. This letter was
taken on record. It would, thus, appear that the concerned officers of CPWD
have exercised due diligence in collecting and furnishing the information
sought by the Appellant and there appear to be no malafides on their part in
this regard.
DECISION
Even though there has been some delay in furnishing the information
to the appellant, it appears to me that the concerned officers of the CPWD
have exercised due diligence in handling the matter and appear to have had
no malafides herein. The fact that they permitted the Appellant to inspect the
records on 04/06/2007 lends credence to this view-point. In view of this, the
Appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central 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.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar