CIC: convey the latest position to the Appellant; No ground for imposing penalty as PIO was not required to keep the Appellant updated regarding the subsequent developments in the issue of laying of a petrol pipeline in the railway station area
Though registered as a complaint, we are treating this matter as an appeal because in his communication dated 9.2.2012 to the CIC, the Appellant, without invoking any particular section of the RTI Act, had prayed for provision of the information sought by him.
2. This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 11.11.2011 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on three points regarding laying of a petrol pipeline in the railway station area. The CPIO responded on 15.2.2012 and informed the Appellant that the issue was under discussion between the Respondents and the Railway authorities. He further stated that the delay in responding to the RTI application was on account of the need to collect the information from the concerned offices. The Appellant filed an appeal to the CIC, which was registered by the Commission on 26.4.2012.
3. The Appellant submitted that the information sought by him has not been provided. The Respondents stated that at the time of CPIO’s response dated 15.2.2012, the matter was under discussion between the Respondents and the Railways authorities and this was conveyed to the Appellant. However, since then, there have been further developments and the latest position in the matter can be conveyed to the Appellant. The CPIO is directed to do so, within ten days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
4. The Appellant stated that he lost a case in the matter, which he had filed in the High Court, because he was not given timely information in response to the three points of his RTI application. He prayed for imposition of penalty on the CPIO and payment of suitable compensation to him. In the above context, we note that the CPIO is required to provide only the information that is available to him at the time of his response to the RTI application. In this case, the CPIO did so on 15.2.2012 by informing the Appellant that the matter was under discussion at that stage between the Respondents and the Railway authorities. The CPIO was not required to keep the Appellant updated regarding the subsequent developments in the matter. Therefore, we see no ground for imposition of penalty on the CPIO or payment of any compensation to the Appellant.
5. The Appellant wanted to make a submission regarding another RTI application filed by someone and stated that he would be sending papers concerning the same to the Commission. He was informed that the matter before us today concerned only his RTI application dated 11.11.2011 and, therefore, we were not in a position to hear his submission regarding any other RTI application.
6. With the direction contained in paragraph 3 and the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Amar Chand Gehlot v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., in File No. CIC/LS/C/2012/000700/SH