SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 6632

के቎ኚरीयसचू नाआयोग Central Information Commission बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नईनिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 ्षितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/REVDP/A/2021/650233–UM Mr.INDER SINGH ….अपीलकताा/Appellant VERSUS बनाम

1. CPIO, O/o CDMO Shahdara District Dte of Health Services R/o Near Dhobi Ghat, VivekViharShahdara Delhi – 110032

2. CPIO O/o SDM (Shahdara)

A - Block First Floor D C Office Complex NandNagri Delhi - 110093 ्ቚ्षतवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 05.07.2022 Date of Decision : 07.07.2022
























ate of RTI application27.04.2021
CPIO’s responseNot on record
Date of the First Appeal24.07.2021
First Appellate Authority’s response24.09.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the CommissionD Nil

ORDER

FACTS

The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-

Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 24.09.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant.

Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Absent

Respondent: DR. Rakesh Kumar, CDMO, present in the hearing.

The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Despite its continuous efforts, the Commission was not able to contact the Appellant.

The Respondent while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that the Appellant had sought information regarding regarding sources of the government from where the statistic of the covid-19 cases had been collected etc. He further submitted that vide letter dated 01.09.2021, they had furnished a suitable reply as per record available in their office. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant, he said.

The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 05.07.2022 which is taken on record.

The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that vide letter dated 24.08.2021, an appropriate reply has been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. However, the Commission takes a serious view of the PIO, Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Shahdara, A Block, First Floor, D.C. Office Complex, Nand Nagari, Delhi- 110093, for not transferring the RTI application of the Appellant to the O/o CDMO Shahdara District Dte of Health Services R/o Near Dhobi Ghat, VivekVihar Shahdara Delhi – 110032, as per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005, which constitutes disrespect towards the RTI Act 2005. The Commission also sees malafide in it on the part of the PIO, SDM, Shahdara, for not appearance before the Commission. Therefore the Commission directs the PIO, Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Shahdara, A Block, First Floor, D.C. Office Complex, Nand Nagari, Delhi- 110093 to show-cause why action should not be taken against him for not transferring the RTI application of the Appellant to the O/o CDMO Shahdara District Dte of Health Services R/o Near Dhobi Ghat, VivekViharShahdara Delhi – 110032, authority as per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005, and for not appearing under the RTI Act and also directs him to explain why a penalty of Rs. 5000/- only (five thousand five only) should not be imposed on him as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top