Under the impression that RTI application was already replied, PIO returned the RTI application - PIO expressed regret for the mistake saying there was no malafide intention - CIC: Send a copy of written submission to Appellant; No further intervention
21 Jun, 2024
Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
“In NIEPMD various meetings seminars and other functions are held. Following details are required in respect of meetings, seminars, parent meeting and events held department wise during 2021 and 2022.
1. Name of the event, date of event, number of participants, Nature of target groups participate purpose of the event.
2. Details of expenses such as decoration expenses, refreshment, video and photo expenses, publicity expenses including banner display expenses, other expenses for each event.
3. Name and address of the recipients of payments for the services and materials provided for the events in respect total of Rs 50000 and over during 12 months period. 4.Similar details as per serial number 1 to 3 in respect of the 2 day visit made by Secretary DEPWD in May 2022 and Secretary DEPWD in July 2022.”
The CPIO vide reply dated 12.12.2022 returned the RTI application stating that the same RTI was previously received. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.12.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 19.03.2024 has been received from the CPIO stating as under:
Respondent was of the impression that the information sought in RTI application was already replied as similar information he had already asked in some other RTI application. Hence he returned the RTI application stating that the information requested has already been supplied previously. Later, on perusal of files, the CPIO (myself) understood that the information requested in this petition is different from previous petition. I regret for the mistake done and I assure the Hon'ble Commission that such situation will not recur in future. It is not done wantonly or in malafide intention.
...The First Appellate Authority has responded to the appeal and furnished the requested information as per his letter dated 07.02.2023.
...The First Appellate Authority has replied elaborately all the requested information as per the annexure 1 and 2 to the appellant.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference
Respondent: Dr. Vijay Singh – CPIO, NIEPMD was present through video conference during the hearing.
The Appellant contended that he has been denied information in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and requested that the Commission may direct that his queries may be answered by the Respondent, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveals that though the Respondent was unable to respond correctly to the queries raised by the Appellant, the FAA vide order dated 07.02.2023 had furnished appropriate information, as is evident from the written submission dated 19.03.2024. Considering the fact that the written submission dated 19.03.2024 filed by the Respondent before the Commission is a detailed, comprehensive and self explanatory statement of facts, the Commission hereby directs the PIO to send a copy of the written submission dated 19.03.2024, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall also submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission, within one week thereafter. No further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Vanniaperumal A v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs, CIC/NIEPM/A/2023/605558/MOCAF; Date of Decision: 27.03.2024