ORDER

FACTS

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 4 points as under:-

1. What is the size and dimension of public green space behind 666, 665 and 663, Sector 8 B Chandigarh.

2. Whether any approval has been given to merge public green space behind 666, 665 and 663, Sector 8 B Chandigarh. If yes a copy of the same may be provided

3. Whether a service lane exist adjoining back wall of 663, Sector 8 B Chandigarh.

4. Whether any encroachment has taken place behind 664 and 663 Sector 8 B Chandigarh.

Dissatisfied with the due to non receipt of any reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 11.07.2018, directed the SDO (B) & CPIO (Building Branch), Estate Office, UT, Chandigarh to provide the information to the Appellant. Thereafter, the CPIO- cum-SDO (B), Estate Office, UT, Chandigarh vide letter dated 12.07.2018 informed the Appellant that information sought is in questionnaire form which is not covered under RTI Act. Moreover, the matter does not pertain to them. Another letter dated 31.07.2018 the CPIO-cum-SDO (B), Estate Office, UT, Chandigarh transferred the RTI application to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, UT, Chandigarh. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide information.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Ajay Sagar (Present) through V.C

Respondent: Absent

The Respondent remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Mukesh, Network Engineer, NIC studio at Chandigarh, confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent, Estate Office, has wrongly transferred his RTI application to Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh instead of providing the information. Further, he submitted that despite two orders passed by the FAA wherein FAA directed CPIO to provide information to the Appellant no information has been provided to him till date in compliance of FAA order. The Appellant requested the Commission to direct the Respondent to provide the information sought by him.

The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 12.02.2021 which is taken on record.

The Respondent was not present to contest the submissions of the Appellant or to substantiate his claims further.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant, the Commission observes that no information has been provided to the Appellant in compliance with the direction of the FAA by the CPIO/Respondent. The Commission therefore, directs the Respondent to furnish a point-wise response to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.

As regards the contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, is concerned, it is evident that no information had been provided by the concerned CPIO in compliance with the direction of the FAA, within the stipulated time period which is a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission therefore instructs the CPIO, to show-cause why action should not be taken against him under the provisions of the Act for this misconduct and negligence and also seeks his explanation why penalty Rs. 10,000/- should not be imposed under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.