Appellant filed numerous complaints regarding defects of his allotted flat; Sought details of all complaints filed by him - CPWD: Details can be accessed on their website - CIC expressed severe displeasure over the conduct of PIO & issued SCN for penalty
28 Oct, 2022Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
Total complaints filed since April 2019 and upto 5th march 2021 against Q. No 5, Type –II sector 4, RK Puram, New Delhi 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. in the following manner:
1. S. No.
2. Complaint no and date
3. Details of complaint
4. Attended on / disposed off
5. If not attended, reasons thereof
Dissatisfied with no response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 20.04.2021.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present
Respondent: Mr Rakesh Kumar, along with Mr Ashwani Roy, S- Div, CPWD, East Block
The Respondent submitted written submission along with status of total lodged complaints by the Appellant in CPWD during hearing and copy of the same was also provided to the Appellant.
The Appellant has furnished order of FAA dated 20.04.2021 whereby PIO SDivision was directed to furnish reply within 10 days of the receipt of said order.
The Appellant submitted that he had filed numerous complaints with respect to defects of his allotted flat QTR. No. 5 but none has been resolved by the CPWD. He further submitted that he has sought complete list of all the complaints filed by him but requisite information has not been furnished till date.
The Respondent submitted that details of the complaints can be accessed by the Appellant on their website through residential log-in mechanism.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing expresses severe displeasure over the conduct of the then CPIO (S- Division, CPWD, East Block) in not having provided any reply on the RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of RTI Act. Now, Commission was unable to procure the name of the then PIO, therefore Commission directs then CPIO (S- Division, CPWD, East Block) through the present CPIO Mr. Rakesh Kumar to send his/her written submissions to justify as to why action should not be initiated against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the gross violation of its provisions. In doing so, if any other persons are also responsible for the omission, the then PIO shall serve a copy of this order on such other persons under intimation to the Commission and ensure that written submissions of all such concerned persons are sent to the Commission. The said written submission of then PIO, S- Division, CPWD, East Block along with submissions of other concerned persons, if any, should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Nevertheless, at this stage the Respondent has furnished the requisite information as defined under section 2 (f) from their official records to the Appellant. Thus, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted under RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya
Information Commissioner
Citation: S. P. Kalra v. Central Public Works Department in Second Appeal No.: CIC/CPWNR/A/2021/650829, Date of Decision: 20.09.20 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.