Non-compliance with an FAA order under the RTI Act can result in penalties against the responsible PIOs.

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/ENGDP/A/2023/629391 Harman Singh Sidhu .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम PIO, CP Div No. 6, Engineering Department, U.T. Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh - 160009 The FAA, S.E., Construction Circle II and FAA Engineering Department, U.T. Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh – 160009. ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondents Date of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Date of Decision : 21.08.2024 Date of SCN hearing : 21.08.2025 Date of SCN Decision : 22.09.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 03.02.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 10.03.2023 First Appellate Authority’s order : 25.04.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 15.06.2023 Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.02.2023 seeking the following information:

1. Copy of Architectural Plan of 180 meter tabletop behind Neelam Cinema, sector 17, Chandigarh.

2. Copy of technical specifications section of Request for Proposal / Tender document of 180 meter tabletop behind Neelam Cinema, sector 17, Chandigarh.

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.03.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 25.04.2023, held as under.

The appeal filed by Shri Harman Singh Sidhu, has been heard on 18.4.2023 at 4.00 PM. After hearing both the parties, Shri Arman, SDE Is hereby directed to supply the requisite drawing to the applicant as and when the same received from the consultant after necessary amendments made at site during construction. The appeal is hereby disposed off accordingly.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA’s order, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 13.08.2024:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video-conference.

Respondent: Absent.

Appellant pleaded that FAA’s order has not been complied with by the Respondent till date. He prayed the Commission to impose the penalty on the erring PIOs for such faults.

Order on 21.08.2024:

“The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the core contention raised by the Appellant in this Appeal was non- compliance of FAA’s order. Further, there is nothing on record filed by the Respondent to clarify as to whether FAA’s order has been complied with or not. The PIO has neither made any efforts to comply with the FAA’s order even upon receipt of hearing notice. Besides, the PIOs did not appear before the Commission despite hearing notice having been served to them. This shows that the PIOs did not have any regard for the RTI Act as well as the Commission. In view of the above, the then PIO, Sh. Arman, SDE and the present PIO are show caused as to why maximum penalty under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed against each of them for not providing the information and not appearing before the Commission despite notice. All the written explanations of the PIOs (both present PIO and the then PIO) must reach the Commission within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Meanwhile, Respondent (present PIO) is directed to comply with the FAA’s order and provide a revised updated point-wise information to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of the directions.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Relevant Facts emerged during Show-Cause proceedings held on

21.08.2025:

I. The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Not Present.

II. Both the parties were not present in the hearing.

Interim Decision:

III. From the perusal of the records, it has come to the attention of the Commission that it is no