2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2836
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
ROMIL CHHADVA – Appellant
Versus
Auroville Foundation – Respondent
CIC/AFOUN/A/2023/647469
The CPIO must provide requested information under the RTI Act within a stipulated time, ensuring compliance with the Act's provisions.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 5(4) - RTI application filed seeking information regarding contracts and payments related to work undertaken in Auroville by ITSP - No response received from CPIO, leading to a Second Appeal - Commission directs CPIO to obtain and provide the requested information within one month, ensuring redaction of personal information. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Duty of CPIO - The CPIO is obligated to provide information requested under the RTI Act and must ensure timely compliance with the provisions of the Act. (Paras 6-8)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking various details regarding contracts and payments related to ITSP's work in Auroville. After no response from the CPIO, a First Appeal was filed, followed by a Second Appeal due to the absence of FAA's order.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that no information was provided by the CPWD and directed the CPIO to obtain the necessary information and respond to the Appellant within one month.
Issues: The main issue was the failure of the CPIO to provide information requested under the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the obligation of the CPIO to provide information under the RTI Act and the necessity for timely compliance with the Act's provisions.
Result: Appeal disposed of with directions to CPIO.
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:
- (i) Copies of contracts and memorandums of understanding insofar as they relate to work undertaken in Auroville by ITSP;
- (ii) Details of the tendering and selection process and its publication that led to the award of a contract to, or otherwise retention of, ITSP for work undertaken in Auroville.
- (iii) Details of payments made and to be made to ITSP for work undertaken in Auroville.
- (iv) Details of who is ultimately paying for the services of ITSP.
- (v) Instructions, Scope of Work and information given to ITSP for work in Auroville by CPWD and the AVF.
- (vi) Meeting minutes relating to work to be undertaken in Auroville by ITSP.
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2023. The FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.
3. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.09.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
- ITSP was identified by CPWD as per their norms and procedures.
4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The appellant along with Representative Adv. Suchindran Baskar Narayan remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Manjula, Dy. Secretary and CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the matter was transferred to CPWD, but till date no information has been received.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the Appellant is connected with and held by CPWD. It is an agreement between CPWD and their service provider i.e. the information sought is connected with the tender handled by CPWD. Hence, the application has been redirected to the office of the Executive Engineer, Central Public Work department, Auroville for providing the information. 8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that as per the record no information has been provided by the CPWD and more than 1 year has passed from the date on which the RTI Application was made. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to obtain relevant information on all the points of the RTI Application from the concerned custodian of the record, if required also by invoking Section 5 (4) of the RTI Act and provide a copy of updated reply to the Appellant, within 1 month from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The CPIO is further directed that while complying with the directions of the Commission, all the personal information/identifying particulars of third parties, if any, should be adequately redacted/blackened out. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.