Seeking proof of conclusion for redressal of grievance - CIC: There must be some document where the grievance of the appellant must have been processed; Provide copy of note-sheet / document to the appellant where his grievance has been processed
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO(s)), Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited (SPMCIL), Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information on three points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) Proof from manual/OM/guideline or any other rule based upon which official has concluded that the matter mentioned in Grievance is of differences of perception;
(ii) Proof (based upon which official disposed the Grievance) which provides the insight meaning of Mr. Sunil Dupare’s statement mentioned in his letter addressed to CIC, etc.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 28.07.2018 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The FAA responded on 29.08.2018. He filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
3. The appellant attended the hearing through video-call. The respondent, Shri Sidharth, CPIO attended the hearing through video-call.
4. The respondent no. 2 submitted their written submissions dated 04.07.2020 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 14.06.2018. The appellant submitted that he wants to know that under which manual/OM/guideline or any other rule based upon which official has concluded that the matter mentioned in Grievance is of differences of perception. The appellant questioned that as to how difference of perception is applicable in his case. The appellant submitted that the reply given by the respondent in vague and evasive.
6. The respondent submitted that the information as available on record has been provided to the appellant on his RTI application. However, the copy of abstract as downloaded from the CPGRAMS website has been provided to the appellant.
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant is aggrieved with the response given by the respondent on his RTI application. The appellant contested that the reply given by the respondent is vague and evasive and does not relate to the information sought by him in his RTI application. The Commission is of the view that there must be some document where the grievance of the appellant must have been processed. Therefore, the respondent is directed to give copy of note-sheet/order/document, etc. to the appellant where his grievance has been processed, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Citation: Varun Krishna v. Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited (SPMCIL) in Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2018/630751, Date 06.07.2020