Similar matter was heard and adjudicated by the CIC directing the PIO to send a reply afresh to the Complainant within 2 weeks - CIC: Ensure compliance of the earlier order failing which penal action u/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act may be initiated
Information sought and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 23.06.2017 seeking information on 2 points mentioned hereunder:
1. Provide the status of Vigilance Enquiry against Shri Balraj for filing false affidavit. Copy of complete file along with order sheet.
2. In the report submitted by Exe. Engineer (E&M) South-III, it has been mentioned that DJB has held on hundred meters of land. In this regard the following information was sought
a. If any room was constructed on the said land.
b. Where has the room built by the DJB gone?
c. If the room has been demolished, where has the debris gone?
d. Was the DJB informed by Shri Balraj about the demolition? Etc
PIO/SE(E&M) W&S-I, vide letter dated 01.08.2017 forwarded the reply to the Appellant provided by the concerned PIO. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 14.08.2017. The FAA vide order dated 29.01.2018 directed the PIO/SE (South), PIO/EE(S)-I, APIO/Civil Side to reply to point no 02 within 15 days.
In compliance of the FAA order, PIO/EE (South)-I, vide letter dated 16.02.2018 furnished the reply of point number 2. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
A Submission dated 12.02.2020 has been received from Director SE (E&M) W & S-I and PIO, DJB which has been taken on record.
Both parties are present and heard. Appellant states no action has been taken on his complaint against Shri Balraj for filing false affidavit at the appointment in the Public Authority. The Respondent stated that similar matter was heard and adjudicated by the Commission earlier in CIC/DELJB/C/2017/156869 dated 16.05.2019 and that the investigation in the case was completed as on date. On being queried regarding the compliance of the aforementioned order directing the PIO to send a reply afresh to the Complainant within 2 weeks, no satisfactory response was offered by the Respondent.
Upon perusal of the facts of the case and the submissions on record and in the light of a similar matter decided by the Commission earlier, the Commission instructs the representatives of the Respondent present during the hearing to ensure the compliance of the earlier order pronounced by the Commission and provide a revised reply to the Appellant within a period of 02 weeks from the date of this order under intimation to the Commission failing which penal action u/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act may be initiated.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha
Citation: Shri MadanSain v. PIO, DJB in Second Appeal No. CIC/DELJB/A/2018/131952, Date of Decision : 14.02.2020