The CPIO must provide complete and accurate information under the RTI Act, and the Commission's decisions are final.

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.08.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) What is the prescribed time limit of the RTI Act, 2005 for furnishing reply by CPIO as the Honourable Information Commissioner passed his order in CIC/OTCLC/C/2022/641682 on 17.08.2023 stating that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO within the prescribed time limit of the RTI Act, 2005 in view of the fact that the date of RTI was 11.04.2022 and reply was given on 26.05.2022.

(ii) Copy of the rule / operating procedure of the CIC under which the appeal preferred before the First Appellate Authority with number OTCLC/A /E/22/00079 was neither mentioned in the notice dated 24.07.2023 for the hearing nor taken into cognizance while passing the decision by the Honourable Information Commissioner on CIC/OTCLC/C/2022/641682.

(iii) In terms of rules/operating procedure of the CIC, whether malafide intention on the part of CPIO for the purpose of invoking Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 has to be decided in view of intentions / actions of the CPIO giving reply to the appellant or in view of deposition of present CPIO during hearing that is held after one year of such reply as it has been observed that in the decision on hearing on CIC/OTCLC/C/2022/641682, on the basis of affirmation of the present CPIO no mala-fide intention has been attributed to the conduct of the earlier CPIO who replied on 26.05.2022.

(iv) Whether any inquiry was conducted under Section 18 (1) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005 in regard to point no. 2 & 3 of the information sought for and narrated in my complaint dated 30.07.2022 registered as CIC/OTCLC/C/2022/641682 as I believe that I was refused the access to said information requested under this Act under the plea of 3rd party but without adhering to the procedures under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, however if so conducted, a copy of the enquiry proceeding along with its findings.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.09.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-

1. Seeking any opinion/clarification from CPIO is not covered under the defination of information as per section 2 (f) of RTI act 2005.

2. CPIO is not competent to make any comment on the decision of the Commission. As per section 19(7) of RTI Act Commission decision is final..

3. As per point no 1 and 2

4. No enquiry has been conducted.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.10.2023. alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 14.11.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 12.12.2023.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Mr. SK Chitkara- DR to CIC(HS) and Ms. Suman Bala, CPIO-RTI Cell attended the hearing in Person.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a suitable reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act has been furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 14.09.2023.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of records, observed that the replies provided by the Respondent on point No. 1,2 and 3 are not as per the requisite details sought in the RTI Application. Therefore, the Respondent, is directed to provide a revised reply to the Appellant, on point No. 1,2 and 3 of the RTI Application within 30 days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

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