ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi seeking following information:-

“I am the petitioner in the revision petition number 1594 of 2018 in NCDRC. The corrupt presiding member Mr. Anup Thakur dismissed my petition by receiving bribes. To verify the above facts please provide me following information:-

1) Please provide me the copy of summon or letter which NCDRC issued to District Forum Thane.

2) Please provide me the detail action taken by NCDRC on District Forum Thane who deny to submit any reply on summons or letter of NCDRC.

3) Please provide me the duty of NCDRC against State Consumer Commission and District Consumer Forum who did not respond to NCDRC direction.

4) Please provide me the detail of all the person with whom Mr. Anup Thakur consulted for dismissing the revision petition.

5) Please provide me the detail examination report conducted by Mr. Anup Thakur on above petition.

6) Please provide me the detail that it is possible for any commission or district forum to release order without sending any notice to respondent.

Etc.”

2. The CPIO responded on 06-05-2019. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 17-05-2019 which was not disposed of by the first appellate authority. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant, Mr. Atal Paramlal Ahirwar attended the hearing through video conferencing. Mr. Iqbal Ahmed, Dy. Registrar, Smt. M. Durga Devi, Assistant Registrar & Mr. Yatinder Sakkarwal, Assistant participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.

4. The appellant requested for supplying the documents of his case file. He pointed towards the inconsistency in the CPIO’s reply & the information which is hosted on their website. He alleged that the information which is stated to be available on the website is actually not available.

5. The respondent expressed no objection in permitting the appellant to inspect the entire case file and also to take photocopies of some specific papers.

Decision:

6. Since the respondent has agreed to permit inspection of the complete case file to the appellant, this Commission directs the CPIO to permit inspection of the case file to the appellant and also to take photo copies of some specific papers on admissible charges on the mutually convenient date and time, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order

7. However, there is inconsistency in the CPIO’s reply & the information hosted on the website of NCDRC, therefore, the then CPIO is hereby cautioned to be more vigilant in responding to the RTI application and not to contravene the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.