Information about Grievance Petition submitted to PMO and steps taken by DARPG to address the issue as per CPGRAMS norms - PIO: Grievance has been closed by AICTE; Name, designation of concerned person is available on portal - CIC: No further intervention
12 Jul, 2024
Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2022 seeking information on following points:-
“1. Kindly provide the procedures that were followed when the GRIEVANCE PETITION was submitted to Prime Minister's Office having the Registration Number: PMOPG/E/2022/0189636 at CPGRAMS on 16th July 2022. (PDF file attached for understanding-41 Pages) has been pending for more than 45 days, and no resolution has yet been made adheres with.
2. Kindly provide me the policies and procedures that the Prime Minister's Office has been following with regard to the issues relating to the GRIEVANCE PETITION filed at CPGRAMS on 16, July, 2022 with the Prime Minister's Office, having Registration Number: PMOPG/E/2022/0189636, which has been remained unresolved despite filing Appeal having Appeal Registration Number: DSEHE/E/A/22/0001043 on 03-08-2022 and the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG) issuing a letter with the citing letter number: NoS-15/21/2021-0/0-DS(PG)- DARPG(7085) (a copy of which is attached for your reference.).
3. Kindly provide the name of the officer who is allegedly in violation of the regulation of Government of India and with whom the matter has been on hold up to this point.
4. Kindly provide the list of essential activities or steps undertaken by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG) in accordance with the Prime Minister's Office of the Government of India to address this issue in compliance with CPGRAMS norms (within 45days).”
The CPIO vide letter dated 23.09.2022 replied as under:-
“Applicant may please refer to the relevant FAQ on the website of this Office i.e. http://www.pmindia.gov.in - Right to Information (from drop down menu) - Frequently Asked Questions - FAQS relating to Public Grievances.”
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.10.2022. The FAA vide order dated 18.10.2022 stated as under:-
“4. I have examined the records in the matter. In this regard, it is held that inputs provided suffice as they are as per records of this office, and, there is no other information remaining to be shared in the matter with you. It is again clarified that the status of your grievance may be obtained from the website www.pgportal.gov.in/Status by using the registration number of your petition.
5. Due to above reasons, no further action is called for on your Appeal and the same is accordingly disposed of.”
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. Parvesh Kumar, US, PMO
The Appellant stated that the relevant information sought in the instant RTI Application has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that he had sought information related to grievance which he had filed on CPGRAM portal but reply which has been provided to him is incorrect and misleading.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Appellant. He further stated that it has been already clarified that the status of grievance may be obtained from the website www.pgportal.gov.in/Status by using the registration number of petition. He further stated that as per the details on CPGRAM portal the grievance of the Appellant has been closed by AICTE and name, designation of concerned person is available on the portal.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Dr. Ramakrushna Mahapatra v. Prime Minister's Office, CIC/PMOIN/A/2023/600055; Date of Decision : 28.03.2024