Respondent: First appeal was addressed to CBI Bhopal, therefore, could not be disposed of by IT Office - CIC: RTI Application replied appropriately; In the absence of appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO’s submissions, no scope of intervention
16 Mar, 2024O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.06.2022 seeking action taken report on his complaint letter dated 26.03.2021.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.06.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-
“Your complaint letter has been transferred to CVC, CBDT, New Delhi on 06.06.2011 for further action.”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.
4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.11.2022.
5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Hariday N Rai, CPIO (vigilance), attended the hearing in person and Mr. Atul, Addl. S.P, (CBI, Bhopal) attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 24.08.2022. He further submitted that the First appeal was addressed to CBI Bhopal, therefore, could not be disposed of by the Income Tax office, New Delhi.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 24.08.2022. During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the First appeal was addressed to CBI Bhopal, therefore, could not be disposed of by the Income Tax office, New Delhi. Further, in the absence of the appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO’s submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
Information Commissioner
Citation: Satyanarayan Somani v. CBI, Directorate General of Income Tax, CIC/CBRUI/A/2022/153902; Date of Decision: 23.02.2024