Scribd
Upload
131 views4 pages

Central Information Commission 1

The Central Information Commission (CIC) heard an appeal filed by RK Malik regarding information sought under the Right to Information Act from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Military Engineer Services and the Garrison Engineer (I) R&D in Timarpur, Delhi. The CPIO had rejected the RTI application citing invalid reasons. The CIC observed that the reasons for rejection were unacceptable and in violation of the RTI Act. It directed the CPIO to provide complete information to point 5 of the application to the appellant within 15 days, with a warning issued regarding compliance with the RTI Act.

Uploaded by

King Sheikh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
131 views4 pages

Central Information Commission 1

The Central Information Commission (CIC) heard an appeal filed by RK Malik regarding information sought under the Right to Information Act from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Military Engineer Services and the Garrison Engineer (I) R&D in Timarpur, Delhi. The CPIO had rejected the RTI application citing invalid reasons. The CIC observed that the reasons for rejection were unacceptable and in violation of the RTI Act. It directed the CPIO to provide complete information to point 5 of the application to the appellant within 15 days, with a warning issued regarding compliance with the RTI Act.

Uploaded by

King Sheikh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

WWW.LIVELAW.

IN

क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल – 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067

File no.: CIC/MESER/A/2018/168728

In the matter of:


R K Malik
... Appellant
VS

1. Central Public Information Officer


RTI Cell, R No. 164A, Military Engineer Services,
Director General (Pers.) Dte Engineer-in-Chief,
Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi – 110 011

2. CPIO/ Garrison Engineer (I)


Military Engineer Services
Garrison Engineer (I) R&D, Lucknow Road
Timarpur, Delhi – 110 054
...Respondents

RTI application filed on : 19/04/2018


CPIO replied on : 26/04/2018
First appeal filed on : 08/09/2018
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record
Second Appeal filed on : 15/10/2018
Date of Hearing : 28/12/2020
Date of Decision : 28/12/2020

The following were present:


Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Shri Kapil Verma, Garrison Engineer and CPIO, present over VC

Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Copy of the letter specifying whether GE (I) R&D Timarpur and Chief
Engineer (R&D), Delhi are under MES or DRDO HQ New Delhi.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN

2. Furnish information on GE (I) R&D letter No. 1609/RTI/382/EIC/ dt.


28/06/17, in which GE (I) R&D informed that HQ CE (R&D) and GE (I) R&D
Timarpur are solely responsible for DRDO project and function under control of
DRDO HQ for all works / matter and GE(I) R&D is an exempted organisation
under section 24 of the RTI Act.
3. Provide a copy of the proforma of progress report for claiming pay and
allowances of industrial staff.
4. And other related information.

Grounds for Second Appeal


The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:


The appellant submitted that till date no information has been provided to him
either by the CPIO or the FAA. He further submitted that he had requested
information from Director General of Kashmir House and hence there is no
locus of the CPIO, Garrison Engineer officer to give a reply in this case.
The Commission took serious note of the CPIO, Engineer-in-Chief office
absence despite duly served notice on 04.12.2020 vide speed post
acknowledgment no. ED500631337IN.

Observations:

From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the CPIO had
rejected the RTI application while stating that the IPO/DD was to be addressed
to GE New Delhi and that the Proof of ID was not found enclosed. Both these
reasons are totally invalid and unacceptable and amount to blatant violation of
the provisions of the RTI Act.

At this point, the Commission draws attention to an observation made by this


Commission in the case of R. K. Jain v. CPIO, Delhi University,
CIC/RM/C/2014/000138-SA. The relevant portion is extracted below:

"The CPIO has every authority to collect the fee prescribed. But when IPO
indicates that Rs 10 paid to Government of India, the RTI application cannot be
considered as without payment. Even non-payment of fee cannot be a ground
for rejection of RTI application. Only grounds for rejection are specifically
provided under section 8 and 9. Reading Section 6 and 7 together and
understanding spirit of RTI Act as a whole should make CPIO to act reasonably
and provide information rather than searching for excuses to reject. Expression
"on payment of such fee" means both fee of Rs 10 and further fee representing
cost of copying. For that the CPIO has to accept and study the RTI Application,
get ready to give the information sought, if not exempted, and seek payment of
WWW.LIVELAW.IN

cost of copying and on receipt of additional fee, if needed, and then the
information need to be provided. What is the significance of fee of 'Rs. 10'?
Does it represent the value of the information, cost of its searching, labour
charge for preparing the information or consideration for it? No. The decision
of CPIO to return the entire application lock stock and barrel on the excuse that
addressee space was left blank is without any legal base and totally
unjustifiable. He refused application at threshold and was not inclined to
arrange information. The mandatory 30 day limit is dismissed by this action. If
CPIO has any issues with realization of that fee for his authority, he has every
chance of addressing those issues. By returning application along with IPO he
has closed all those chances."

With regard to the objection raised by the CPIO that the appellant had failed to
annex his identity proof with his RTI application, the Commission refers to the
order passed by the Commission in File No. CIC/OK/C/2008/00016

"9. During the hearing the Commission noted that the Respondent had asked
the Appellant to specify that he was a bonafide Indian citizen saying that this
was necessary under Section 3 of the RTI-Act.

10. The Commission considers this attitude of the Respondents as against the
spirit of the RTI-Act. Actually Section 3 of the Act reads, 'Subject to the
provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information'. Nowhere
does it say, nor imply, that a person would be required to prove his citizenship
every time that he was asking for information. Thus, there are thousands of
applications which are considered without a person providing a certificate to
prove that he is an Indian citizen. This means that in the rarest of rare cases
where there is a doubt that the applicant is indeed an Indian citizen, the Public
Authority may ask him for proof. This, however, can only be an exception rather
than the rule."

The CPIO ENC officer was not present to explain how the present case is a
rarest of rare case in which there is doubt about the citizenship status of the
applicant i.e. he is not an Indian citizen. However, the CPIO Garrison Engineer
Office submitted that a suitable reply was given to the appellant on 11.08.2018
in which all the points of the RTI application was replied to. The Commission
observed that point no. 5 reply was not proper in which it was stated that
Government policy is not traceable with the office. The CPIO should revisit the
RTI application and provide a justified reply by substantiating the unavailability
of the reply.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO Garrison Engineer office is directed to provide
complete information in respect of point no. 5 to the appellant within 15 days
from the date of issue of this order under intimation to the Commission. The rest
of the points were adequately replied to.
A strict warning is also issued to the concerned CPIO, Engineer in Chief office, for
such blatant violation of the RTI Act. He should note that such kind of act amounts
to denial of information which violates the letter and spirit of the RTI Act. In case
such a mistake is repeated in future by him, the Commission will be constrained
to initiate penal proceedings u/s 20 of the RTI Act . Further, in future he should
remain present before the Commission for hearing without fail or at least
intimate the Commission if he is unable to be present on some valid grounds .

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)


Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आय!
ु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)

A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)


Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182594 /
दनांक/ Date

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy