ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2022 seeking information through 9 points in the following manner:

(i) “Reference is drawn towards CIC complaint numbered CIC/DIRED/C/2022/610314 & subsequent link paper pending before Sh. Uday Mahurkar -

Query (a) Copy of the action taken by the concerned registry on the abovementioned link paper.

(ii) Reference is drawn towards CIC decision in r/o appeal numbered CIC/EDUDH/A/2020/687489 decided by Sh. Heeralal Samariya & letter numbered F/Z-27/RTI/2020-21/963-64 dt. 30-3-22 endorsed to R.P. Grover (Dy.

Registrar) by DDE Z-27 -

Query (b) Certified copy of the two pages of note sheet (2/N to 3/N) annexed with the above-mentioned letter of DDE Z-27 (iii) Reference is drawn towards CIC decision in r/o appeal numbered CIC/DIRED/A/2021/699494 decided by Sh. Heeralal Samariya & subsequent non-compliance link paper 636001/2022 -

Query (c) Copy of the information regarding directions to the respondent i.e. PIO, E-3 branch, Dte. of Education for compliance of the directions of the Information Commissioner.

(iv) Reference is drawn towards CIC decision in r/o appeal numbered CIC/PWDDL/A/2020/680400 decided by Sh. Heeralal Samariya & subsequent non-compliance link paper 631404/2022 -

Query (d) Copy of the information regarding directions to the respondent i.e. PIO, PWD, GNCTD for the compliance of the directions of the Information Commissioner.

(v) Reference is drawn towards CIC decision in r/o complaint numbered CIC/DIRED/C/2021/661598 decided by Sh. Heeralal Samariya & subsequent non-compliance link paper 635848/2022 -

Query (e) Copy of the information regarding directions to the respondent i.e. PIO, Dte. of Education, GNCTD for the compliance of the directions of the Information Commissioner…”

2. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 12.09.2022. The FAA vide order dated 23.09.2022 directed the CPIO to reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act by 04.10.2022.

3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

4. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, R K Rao, Deputy Registrar & CPIO attended the hearing in person.

5. The Commission took on record the written submissions of the Appellant filed prior to the hearing wherein it was stated that he received a reply from the CPIO dated 03.08.2023 wherein the information was denied under various grounds and it was urged that the matter pertains to larger public interest emanating from an issue of illegal construction on a prohibited zone of ASI and action taken by various agencies thereon for its removal.

6. The Respondent submitted that initially a reply to the RTI Application was provided on 03.08.2023 wherein information was provided on points (c) and (i) of the RTI Application and on the remaining points, the information was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It was further submitted that prior to the hearing, a revised reply has been provided to the Appellant on 16.02.2024 wherein the available information on all points of the RTI Application has been provided. 7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, takes grave exception to the inordinate delay caused by the CPIO in providing a reply to the RTI Application. Moreover, the CPIO clearly failed to even adhere to the timeline prescribed by the FAA for providing a reply to the Appellant. Even further, the CPIO initially denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and at this belated stage, he has revised the reply by doing away with the exemption altogether and has provided the information. Furthermore, the CPIO has not bothered to place any written explanation on record or submission during the hearin