ORDER

FACTS

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought the following information on 03 points in respect of application for awarding MACP / Promotion on 15.01.2018 addressed to Director of Fisheries:-

1. Please provide information on when the application was received at Directorate of Fisheries along with a photocopy of the section diary where the same is entered.

2. Please provide information regarding the name and designation of the dealing assistant who is in charge of the file of awarding of MACP and promotion to Fisheries staff.

3. Please provide the details of the action taken on his representation dated 15.01.2018 along with photocopy of the note sheet dealt with the matter.

4. If no action is initiated on his application dated 15.01.2018 till date, reason for the same may please be provided.

5. Please provide information regarding total vacancies of Assistant Fisheries officer and similar grades and details of the units where the posts are available at present.

Dissatisfied due to non - receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide action taken on his RTI application. HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Adv. Hidaya (Representative of Appellant) through AC;

Respondent: Mohd. Kasim, PIO, through AC;

The Appellant’s representative reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that clear, cogent and precise point-wise information was not provided by the CPIO / FAA, within the stipulated time frame. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that on several occasions the Appellant was intimated that “the department is awarding MACP to the eligible employees of the department as per procedure”. The Appellant’s representative however, remained dissatisfied with the reply of the Respondent and vehemently argued that the queries raised in the RTI application was not addressed satisfactorily. The Appellant’s representative further submitted that the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005, in the Respondent Public Authority is far from satisfactory and therefore, strict action should be taken against the erring Respondent and advisory should be issued for the same. The Commission noted that reply/order dated 12.09.2018/15.04.2019/20.05.2019, etc. is available on record which is replied/disposed of beyond the prescribed time limit.

Having heard both the parties at length and on perusal of the available records, the Commission at the outset observed that the CPIO / FAA did not provide a satisfactory response to the Appellant. The provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and various judgements on the subject matter clearly establishes that it is the duty of the CPIO to provide clear, cogent and precise response to the information seekers. Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005 also states that where a request for disclosure of information is rejected, the CPIO shall communicate the reasons for such rejection. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 clearly stated that the PIO acts as the Pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act. The relevant extracts of the decision are as under:

“ 7“it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken”.

The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act.”

8………….The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disc