RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Appeal
| S.No. | CIC CASE | DATE OF JUDGMENT | JUDGMENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
CIC/UIICL/A/2018/120876-BJ (233.66 KB) 
|
20 Dec, 2019 | Mr. Durgesh Goud Vs. CPIO, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Rungta Building, Near Punjab National Bank, 64, Sadawarti, Azamgarh – 276001 Information Sought The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information / clarifications regarding the status of his policy claim, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 04.05.2017 provided a suitable response to the Appellant stating that in the absence of the complete documents, the claim could not be processed and that subsequent to receipt of the documents, the claim amount would be processed within 30 days. Dissatisfied with the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The Order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Decision Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that: “3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at. The Commission also noted that it should be the endeavour of the CPIO to ensure that maximum assistance should be provided to the RTI applicants to ensure the flow of information. In this context, the Commission referred to the OM No.4/9/2008-IR dated 24.06.2008 issued by the DoP&T on the Subject “Courteous behavior with the persons seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005” wherein it was stated as under: “The undersigned is directed to say that the responsibility of a public authority and its public information officers (PIO) is not confined to furnish information but also to provide necessary help to the information seeker, wherever necessary.” Moreover, vide its judgment dated 13.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 10044 OF 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 OF 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had declared the Chief Justice of India as a Public Authority as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information. The Respondent was not present to contest the submissions of the Appellant or to substantiate their claims further. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant and taking into consideration the allegations levelled by the Appellant regarding the large scale malpractices within the Respondent Public Authority, the Commission directs the CMD, United India Insurance Company Ltd, Chennai, to have the matter examined through an officer of an appropriate seniority in respect of the gross negligence exhibited by the Respondent Public Authority, CPIO / FAA and initiate appropriate action against the guilty officials for disrespecting the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The findings of the enquiry should be intimated to the Appellant with a copy endorsed to the Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission further advises the competent authority within the Public Authority to look into the grievance of the Appellant in accordance with the extant guidelines. It is also noted that the public authority needs to evolve a robust grievance redressal mechanism so that shoulders of RTI are not being used for a solution to the administrative problems. The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences /seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities. The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction. |
| 2 |
CIC/UOALD/A/2018/138514/02277 (494.43 KB)
|
05 Dec, 2019 | Motilal Tripathi Vs. CPIO, University of Allahabad Information Sought The appellant has sought the following information: 1. A letter dated 11/12/2015 was sent by the appellant to medical cell for getting reimbursement of cost of Hearing Aid but it took almost 185 days. He wants to know the reason for such long delay and the details of the officer responsible for the delay. 2. On searching departmental records it was found that the said letter was sent to Sh. Khan Umar, Accounts Department on 03/07/2016. He wants copy of the peon book through which it was sent to Sh. Khan Umar. 3. And other related information. Decision The CPIO is accordingly directed to provide a point wise reply as discussed above after taking assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act from the other concerned offices within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. |
| 3 |
CIC/BHELD/A/2018/118759 (605.80 KB)
|
15 Nov, 2019 | Shri Panjaj Bhatia Vs. PIO / Asst. General Manager (HR-LAW), B.H.E.L., Siri Fort House, New Delhi Information Sought The Appellant filed RTI application dated 11.10.2017 seeking information regarding medical expenditure claim for 2016-2017, for retired employees, he sought information on various points, viz.; 1. Has this claim been processed? 2. Has the claim reimbursement been paid to the claimant? If yes, then on which date, to which account by which mode? 3. If there are some specific reasons for not making the payment till now, then please detail the same, by which date the payment should be expected? 4. If the claim has been misplaced by BHEL, then what efforts have been made to locate it, as the Retd. Employees (self) have been making persistent efforts for its payment, on phone or by e-mail to HR. 5. Any other relevant information in this matter, to get the payment due. Decision Upon perusal of records of the case, the Commission finds that as far as the RTI query is concerned, there appears no flaw in the action of the Respondent. However, the germane issue which remains open in this case is resolution of the grievance of the appellant, which could have been addressed by the FAA if the Appellant had been heard while adjudicating the First Appeal. Under the circumstances, it is deemed to be in the interest of all relevant parties that the case is remanded to the FAA, who shall address the issue at hand after hearing both parties and pass a reasoned, speaking order, addressing the grievance of the appellant. A copy of the order passed by the FAA, BHEL shall be submitted before the Commission by 16.12.2019, failing which non-compliance proceedings shall be ensued automatically. |
| 4 |
CIC/CCITK/A/2018/122535-BJ+ (201.94 KB)
|
04 Nov, 2019 | Mr. Kalyan Kumar Maiti Vs. CPIO & ACIT (Hqrs.), (Admn. & Vig.), O/o the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal & Sikkim, Kolkata Information Sought The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information as to “circumstances leading to issuance of another PAN Number being AADAT6974E, using their name and date of registration (01.03.1983) along with the statement of such details as available in a specified site as Annexed in the application, etc. Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the submissions made by the Respondent during the hearing demonstrating the acceptance to the neglect in transferring the RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, within the stipulated time-frame to the concerned CPIOs, the Commission directs the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal and Sikkim, to get this matter enquired into by an officer of an appropriate seniority and to initiate suitable action against the concerned CPIO and cautioned the concerned FAA for its dereliction of duties and responsibilities in contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Action taken in the matter be reported to the Appellant with a copy endorsed to the Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities. The Appeals stand disposed with the above direction. |
| 5 |
CIC/NDMCH/A/2018/112250 (570.23 KB)
|
01 Nov, 2019 | Shri Deepak Bhardwaj Vs. PIO/ North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Ayush Department / Ayurveda Section. Information Sought Appellant filed RTI application dated 17.10.2017 seeking information on thirteen points:- 1. Provide copy of entire file, including noting sheets, correspondence etc., of file no. Addl. Dir(Ay.)/North DMC/2017 from which office no. Addl. Dir.(Ay.)/North DMC/2017/D-2566 dated 17.09.2017 have been issued. 2. Provide copy of entire file, including noting sheets, correspondence etc., of file no. Addl. Dir(Ay.)/North DMC/2017 from which office no. Addl. Dir.(Ayush)/North DMC/2017/D-226 dated 25.09.2017 have been issued. 3. Provide copy of entire file, including noting sheets, correspondence etc., of no. AO (H)/NDMC/2017 from which office order no. AO(H)/NDMC/2017/D-542 dated 21.09.2017 have been issued. Etc. Decision Perusal of the records indicate that initially a response was provided by the PIO on the basis of the information available with him, which was limited. However, after the receipt of Commission’s notice for the Second Appeal, efforts were made by the PIO to obtain information from other custodian of records. Consequently, a revised reply was sent to the Appellant on 21.10.2019. This could have been avoided if the AO (Health) and PIO Ayurveda had both done this exercise at the time of receipt of RTI application itself. Nonetheless, substantial information, though late, has now duly been provided to the Appellant. Therefore, Commission finds that no further adjudication is required in this case. Commission however, observes that there has been a delay at each subsequent level in the Respondent public authority with regard to handling of the RTI application. This reflects poorly on the state of affairs in the Respondent public authority. Commission, thus, issues a warning to be careful in future while handling RTI applications to avoid such lapse and delay. Any future violation of the RTI Act may result in penal action against the officer found accountable. Lastly, Commission expresses its displeasure over the non-adjudication of the First Appeal solely on the ground that the Appellant was absent. It is clarified that even if the Appellant is not present for the FAA hearing, it is imperative for the FAA to adjudicate the appeal based on merits of the case. To dispose of the appeal solely due to the absence of the Appellant, is not justified. The appeal is disposed of accordingly, with the above observations. |
| 6 |
CIC/DVAAC/A/2018/113238 (567.13 KB)
|
01 Nov, 2019 | Shri Rakesh Kumar Vs. PIO /Anti-Corruption Branch (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Vikas Bhawan-2, Delhi – 110054 Information Sought Appellant vide RTI application dated 27.11.2017 sought information on the following two points: (1) Please confirm receipt of my letter sent by Speed Post on 17.10.2017 (2) If my letter, sent by Speed Post on 17.10.2017, is received in your office, I may please be given details of action taken by various officers, on that letter from the date of receipt till date giving details of these officers. Decision Perusal of records of the case reveal that the actual custodian of information against query number 2 is the Dy. Commissioner, Rohini Zone, to whom the RTI application had been forwarded by the PIO/EE/Vigilance/NDMC. However, there has been no representation from the O/o Dy. Commissioner Police, Rohini Zone nor has the Appellant appeared for the hearing. The Second appeal does not contain the letter dated 17.10.2017, hence it is not possible to deduce the correct facts of the case. Under the given circumstances, it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion without corroborative facts. Hence the instant appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. |
| 7 |
CIC/DIRED/A/2018/110052 (392.96 KB)
|
03 Oct, 2019 | Shri Lalit Kumar Vs. PIO/Dy. Director of Education-HQ, Directorate of Education Information Sought Appellant filed RTI application dated 11.10.2017 seeking information on three points:- 1. In respect to the circular dated 22.09.2008 by GNCT of Delhi, DoE, E-II BR, Old Secretariat please provide information whether any changes took place in RRs as mentioned in the above circular or the interpretation of the RR as done till 27.6.2006 shall be followed in the DPC’s on 27.6.2006 and thereafter. 2. Provide information regarding any circular super seeding or amendment in above mentioned circular. 3. As per above mention circular, number of candidates in Aided school of GNCT of Delhi benefited to get promotion from TGT (Sanskrit) to PGT (Hindi) and from TGT(Hindi) to PGT (Sanskrit). Provide the list of such promoted teachers with school name. Decision Commission observes that there appears to be certain discrepancy in the submissions of both the parties. While Appellant insists that under circular dated 22.09.2008 he was due for promotion but his junior was promoted instead, the Respondent claims that none of the teachers were promoted. Under the circumstances, the case is remanded to the FAA (HQ)/Smt. Vinita Shankar, RDE (North / Inspection Branch) (CDC) to adjudicate over the matter upon providing opportunity of fair hearing to both the parties and decide the same on merits giving specific directions to the concerned PIO to furnish the deficient information to the Appellant, if any.The appeal shall be decided by a reasoned, speaking order. An action taken report containing the FAA’s order shall be submitted before the Commission within 1 month from the date of this order, failing which appropriate action for non-compliance shall be commenced suo motu. |
| 8 |
CIC/ICAOI/A/2018/629505/00854 (257.17 KB)
|
10 Jun, 2019 | Mohit Kumar Gupta Vs. CPIO, ICAI, New Delhi – 110 002 Information Sought The appellant has sought the following information: 1. Provide the number of CA students who have registered and de-registered / lapsed registration in each year 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 (Details category and year wise be provided) for the following courses: I. B.Com, BBA, M.Com and MBA programmes of Bharathiar University under MOU with ICAI. II. B.Com and M.Com programmes of IGNOU under MOU with ICAI. 2. Provide the number of CA students who have applied for examinations (details of the candidates who filled the examination forms) in each year 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 (Details category and year wise be provided) for the following courses: I. B.Com, BBA, M.Com and MBA programmes of Bharathiar University under MOU with ICAI. II. B.Com and M.Com programmes of IGNOU under MOU with ICAI. 3. Provide the number of CA students who have passed examination (provide along with PASSING PERCENTAGE) in each year 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 (Details category and year wise be provided) for the following courses: I. B.Com, BBA, M.Com and MBA programmes of Bharathiar University under MOU with ICAI. II. B.Com and M.Com programmes of IGNOU under MOU with ICAI. 4. And other related information. Decision The first Appellate Authority submitted that under the RTI Act, there is no specific provision for giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. She also stated that undoubtedly the principles of natural justice has to be followed on case to case basis and unless and until the FAA feels that the matter is important and requires the appellant to be heard, in such cases only, a chance is given to the appellant to appear personally and to represent his case. It was her decision based on the perusal of the facts mentioned in the First Appeal memo that personal hearing was not provided to the appellant nor was the delay of 22 days condoned as there was no cogent reason on the part of the appellant for such delay. From a perusal of the relevant case records and considering the averments put forward by both the parties, the main issue for determination before the Commission is whether the First Appellate Authority’s order of dismissing the First Appeal without affording an opportunity to explain the delay of 22 days in filing his First Appeal and also not providing him a chance to present his case of dissatisfaction on the reply of the CPIO is legal and justified. The appellant submitted that the case merits remand to the First Appellate Authority for giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, first regarding the aspect of condonation of delay, and secondly on the subject matter of the RTI application. The concerned FAA who was also present during the hearing submitted that she has passed a reasoned order while dismissing the First Appeal. At this point, it is important to quote verbatim the observation given by the FAA in her order which is reproduced below: “I have also perused the request of the appellant for condonation of delay in preferring this appeal and noted that the reasons furnished by the appellant are very vague and general in nature. The reason that the appellant was busy in preparation of CA Final Examination cannot be said to be a justified one, entitling the appellant for the condonation of delay in preferring this appeal.” Here, it is needless to say that rendering an opportunity of hearing to the parties is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence. It is conducive to fairness and transparency and is in accordance with the principles of natural justice. An opportunity of hearing to the parties also brings greater clarity to the adjudicating authorities. This Commission always gives an opportunity of hearing to the parties but this does not appear to be usually done by the FAAs, as probably there are practical difficulties therein, partly arising out of the number of appeals involved and partly due to the limited time frame in which the matters are required to be decided. However, in cases where an appellant specially asks for such a hearing before the FAA, such an opportunity should be granted. The essence of the RTI Act is to provide complete, correct and timely information to the appellant. In this particular case, the FAA has also declined to condone the delay of 22 days in filing the First Appeal by the appellant and has not even granted hearing for hearing his reasons for such delay. The Commission notes that the reasons put forth by the appellant in his first appeal are genuine and reasonable and this short delay of 22 days could have been condoned by the First Appellate Authority. The least that could have been done was to provide a fair chance of representing his case before the Appellate Authority. .. The principles of natural justice signify the basic minimum fair procedure which must be followed while exercising decision making powers. Natural justice forms the very backbone of a civilized society. The wheels regarding the application of principles of natural justice to administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings started turning from 1963 when the House of Lords in the United Kingdom delivered the landmark and often quoted judgment of Ridge v. Baldwin [1963] UKHL 2. An order for dismissal of a Constable was quashed because he was not provided any opportunity to defend his actions. Presently, in our country, the principles of natural justice are applicable in totality to administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings. This is consistent and in line with the rapidly increasing role, functions and jurisdiction of such bodies in a welfare state like ours. The below-mentioned passage of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. AIR 2009 SC 2375 exhaustively explains the term natural justice which is reproduced below for ready reference: "6. Natural justice is another name for commonsense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a commonsense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted Writ Petition No.6427/2017 considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form. Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009 issued by the DoPT while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that: "3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at. 5..............................The Act provides that the first appellate authority would be an officer senior in rank to the CPIO. Thus, the appellate authority, as per provisions of the Act, would be an officer in a commanding position vis a vis' the CPIO. Nevertheless, if, in any case, the CPIO does not implement the order passed by the appellate authority and the appellate authority feels that intervention of higher authority is required to get his order implemented, he should bring the matter to the notice of the officer in the public authority competent to take against the CPIO. Such competent officer shall take necessary action so as to ensure implementation of the RTI Act. " The Commission notes that the manner of dismissal of the first appeal by the FAA without granting an opportunity for personal hearing after the appellant has specifically asked for a hearing goes against the principles of natural justice. The FAA in this case without hearing the appellant concluded that the case needs to be dismissed being time barred, without providing an ample opportunity to the appellant to justify the delay in filing the appeal and this reflects unreasonable handling of the first appeal, driving the appellant to file Second Appeal. Therefore, the Commission advices the First Appellate Authority not to repeat this practice of not hearing the appellant when a hearing is specifically sought. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the observations and decisions cited above, the Commission remands the matter to the FAA, Mrs. Seema Gerotra to re-examine the RTI application/ First Appeal and pass a reasoned decision after hearing both the parties, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant is at liberty to approach the Commission by way of a fresh Second Appeal with regard to the above mentioned RTI application in case such need arises. |
| 9 |
CIC/RECOS/A/2017/145766 (581.45 KB)
|
07 Jun, 2019 | Shri Prem Chand Thapliyal Vs. PIO, Nodal Officer, Parliament Street, New Delhi–110001 Information Sought The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.03.2017, seeking information regarding the Shankar CGHS Society, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi. The Appellant stated that a representation had been submitted to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 20.12.2016 for requesting the election of the President of the society who has resigned on 30.07.2015. He further complained of unlawful activities of the managing committee of the said society and sought the following information:- 1. When the election of the president takes place, if decided. 2. If not decided the reason thereof. 3. Whether any action is taken against the managing committee for the unlawful acts by the Management particularly with regards to implementation of unlawful resolution dated 17.01.2016. 4. If yes, provide what action has been taken? 5. If no, consider the acts as he mentioned in his letter dated 20.12.2016 are not unlawful. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 15.05.2017. Feeling aggrieved as neither the PIO nor the FAA furnished the information to the Appellant. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal. Decision Two written submissions have been received from the appellant Shri Prem Chand Thapliyal dated 25.04.2019 & 03.04.2019, seeking imposition of penalty on the PIO, on account of their inaction regarding the unlawful activities going on in the Society. Submission dated 30.04.2019 has been received from the PIO/Asst. Registrar (RCS) regarding rescheduling of the date of hearing. Respondent alone is present for hearing and states that upon receipt of the RTI application, the PIO had replied vide letter dated 31.08.2017 and requested the appellant to inspect the records. However, the appellant did not visit for inspection. The respondent has further informed that the appellant has been apprised even about the current status vide letter dated 29.05.2019. Facts of the case, which have emerged during the course of hearing indicate that respondent has in fact been taking necessary action with respect to the mismanagement in the Shankar CGHS Society. A detailed order dated 25.04.2019 and status report dated 29.04.2019 (furnished to the appellant) clarify the position. It is also noted that the PIO/AR- Sh. Sanjay Jain had provided inspection of the file of the Society vide letter dated 31.08.2017, which was not availed by the appellant. It is also noted that the appellant had not disclosed the PIO’s reply in the Second Appeal and the appellant is not present to contest his case in person despite being given the opportunity to do so. Considering the facts of the case, the Commission is of the considered opinion that it does not appear from the records of the case, that the respondent has caused any infringement to the access of information or has deliberately denied information. The appellant was at liberty to obtain the necessary information, which he chose not to. There is no merit in the instant case. |
| 10 |
CIC/ALMUV/A/2018/105275/00810 (210.07 KB)
|
04 Jun, 2019 | Ramavtar Vs. The CPIO/ Section Officer, AMU, Aligarh-202002. Information Sought The appellant has sought the following information: 1. The date on which Dr. Zarina Arif has been appointed as Asst. Professor in the Biochemistry department of Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, affiliated to Aligarh Muslim University. 2. In which newspaper the vacancy for the post of Asst. Professor in the Biochemistry department of the said medical college was published. 3. How many applications were received for the post. 4. The number of applicants appeared in the examination and the number of applicants who were called for the interview. 5. And other related information. Decision The appellant’s representative came for the hearing but neither had any authorization letter from the appellant nor any file related to the case. Hence, he was not allowed to plead the case. The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was provided on 14.12.2017 in respect of points 2,3,4,5,7,8,9,11 and 12 and on 16.12.2017 in respect of points no. 1,6 and 10 of the RTI application. Based on a perusal of the RTI application it was noted that in respect of points no. 1 to 12 an appropriate pointwise reply was provided. The Appellant has not availed of the opportunity to plead his case or contest the CPIO’s submissions. In view of the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter. The Commission accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies. |
| 11 |
CIC/PAROI/A/2018/133444 (584.66 KB)
|
03 Jun, 2019 | Kailash Chand Gupta Vs. CPIO, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi CIC Order The Commission, vide order dated 11.02.2019, directed the FAA, Rajya Sabha Secretariat to submit an enquiry report to the Commission within 6 weeks regarding whether the first appeal was received by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. If received, whether it was not attended due to lapse on the part of the officials. Further, CPIO, Rajya Sabha Secretariat was directed to respond to the RTI application, a copy of which is provided by the Commission, within 4 weeks. Decision The Commission, after perusing the records, observes that the respondent has complied with the directions of the Commission. Hence, no further action is required in the matter. Accordingly, the matter is closed at the Commission’s level. With the above observations, the non-compliance complaint is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties. |
| 12 |
CIC/CVCOM/A/2017/172755/SD (115.28 KB)
|
01 May, 2019 | Subhash Chand Vs. CPIO, Central vigilance Commission, Block-A, INA, New Delhi-110023.Subhash Chand Vs. CPIO, Central vigilance Commission, Block-A, INA, New Delhi-110023.sion, Block-A, INA, New Delhi-110023. Information Sought The Appellant sought to know if any reply has been received from SDMC and DDA against his Complaint registered vide no. 32666 in the year 2012; copy of report received, if any. Decision However, FAA is advised to take note for future that in the interest of natural justice, Applicants should be afforded an opportunity of hearing before deciding First Appeal(s). |
| 13 |
CIC/NDMCC/A/2016/294805 (160.96 KB)
|
22 Jan, 2018 | Rajendra Saxena Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation ISSUE :The appellant sought for information regarding action taken on his complaint dated 22/12/15. The PIO responded to the request as per his letter dated 18/5/16. Dissatisfied with the reply the appellant filed appeal before the FAA. The FAA disposed of the appeal directing the CPIO to provide the specific and complete reply. Dissatisfied the appellant filed an appeal before the CIC. DECISION : Perusal of the records of the case reveal that the FAA has passed a non-speaking order without specifying how the PIOs order is incomplete and unsatisfactory. The case is remanded back to the FAA to adjudicate over the matter and decide the same on merits giving specific directions to the PIO to furnish the deficient information if any. An action taken report shall be positively submitted before the Commission within two weeks. |
| 14 |
CIC/SB/A/2016/000357-BJ (99.28 KB)
|
23 Jan, 2017 | Jatinder Kumar Aggarwal vs O/o the Commissioner of Service Tax-111, Mumbai Section 19(1) — Appeal to FAA — the Commission held that it is evident that although the CPIO had provided a suitable response but the conduct of the FAA against whom the information was being sought was perceptibly suspect and it was ethically wrong on his part and against the principles of natural justice to adjudicate his own matter. The Commission directed the Chairman, CBEC to designate another officer in the matter as FAA and the case is remanded for adjudication afresh by the FAA, thus appointed by the CBEC. |
| 15 |
CIC/SH/A/2015/002179 (134.95 KB)
|
28 Dec, 2016 | Chandra Prakash Verma vs Central Bank of India Regional Office, Varanasi Section 19 The Appellant stated that the information sought by him has not been provided. It was pointed out to him that while the RTI application and the appeal to the Commission have been filed by him, the appeal to the FAA was filed by one Shri Ratan Kumar Verma. The Appellant stated that Shri Ratan Kumar Verma is his son and was entitled to file an appeal u/s 19. However, we do not agree with the above Interpretation given by the Appellant to Section 19. Appeals under Section 19 can be filed only by the RTI applicant himself and not by any other person. We note that the FAA, vide his order dated 11.7.2015 had refused to entertain the appeal filed by the son of the Appellant. In view of the above, we see no ground to interfere with the order of the FAA. However, if he so desires, the Appellant may himself file an appeal to the FAA. In the event of his doing so, the FAA is directed to dispose of the appeal strictly within the time frame laid down in the RTI Act. The Appellant shall be at File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/002179 liberty to approach the Commission in appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act, in case he is not satisfied with the order of the FAA. |