CIC: Appellant has failed to give a sufficient justified cause explaining delay in preferring the second appeal, hence, the appeal is considered as time barred u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act and accordingly, dismissed without going into the merits of the case
25 Jan, 2023Information Sought:
The Complainant has sought the following information:
1. Provide documents containing details of year-wise vacancies in JTS group “A” service in Defence Estates Organisation as per ROTA quota guidelines issued by DoPT vide Circular No. 20011/1/2012-Estt.(D) dated 04/03/2014.
2. Provide details of all the DPCs convened for promotion of JTS (Gp-A) from ADEO/ CEO(Grp-B) in the Defence Estates Organisation w.e.f 01/01/2010 to 16/07/2020.
3. Provide details of officers promoted from ADEO/ CEO (Gp-B) to JTS (Gp - A) in the Defence Estates Organization w.e.f. 01. 01/01/2010 to 16/07/2020.
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 reply has been given to him. He has also prayed that the delay in filing the second appeal may be condoned as the same was caused due to pandemic in the country. During the course of the hearing, the appellant failed to afford any reasonable and plausible explanation for the inordinate delay of one year in preferring the second appeal.
The CPIO remained absent for the hearing despite prior intimation. The CPIO vide email dated 17.11.2022 i.e. the day fixed for the hearing sought adjournment on the grounds of certain family affairs. The same has been taken on the Commission’s record.
Observations:
The Commission upon the CPIO’s receipt of request for adjournment did not adjourn the hearing and proceeded with the hearing as the request was not sought prior to the date of hearing and the time was too short to intimate the appellant or to fix this slot for another appellant. Adverting to the facts of the case, the Commission observes that the second appeal has been filed after the lapse of the laid down timeline as per Sec 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act. The appellant has stated that due to Covid-19 he has failed to file the second appeal within time. However, this reason cannot be accepted as a sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing his second appeal after the stipulated time mentioned under Section 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act as the period from September 2020 to March 2021, the peak time of Covid-19, was already over and all the offices were functioning with basic staff. In the absence of any valid reason/sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing the appeal in time, it is appropriate to consider the case as time barred under Sec 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act. Moreover, it is noted that the second appeal has been filed after a year from the date of the FAA’s order for which no acceptable explanation has been provided by the appellant.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission notes that the appellant has failed to give a sufficient justified cause explaining delay in preferring the second appeal, hence, the appeal is considered as time barred under Sec 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act and accordingly dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Bakulkumar Vaghela v. Directorate General Defence Estate, File no.: CIC/DIGDE/C/2021/142789, Date of Decision: 17.11.2022