Information regarding the appointment of some individuals was sought - FAA’s order in favour of providing the information was not followed against which no appeal was filed - CIC: Provide the information; compensation of Rs. 1000/- granted to appellant
The appellant has sought the following information regarding the appointment of the Bhure Kha, Gourav Shukla, Rameshwar, Subhash Joshi and Prahlad Rathore:-
1. Provide the certified copies of the rulings/orders/guidelines adopted by the department regarding the appointment of Grameen Dak Sewak.
2. Provide the certified copies of the applications and the documents given by the mentioned Dak Sewak.
3. Provide the names and designations of the officers under whose observance the appointment of the said Grameen Dak Sewak were appointed.
4. Provide the certified copy of the appointment letter and the notesheet prepared by the officers of the committee regarding the appointment of the said Grameen Dak Sewak.
5. Provide the details of the rulings which were obstructed during the appointment of the said Grameen Dak Sewak and also provide the copies of the notings prepared by the officers regarding the same.
6. What actions were taken against the officers who were found guilty regarding the appointment of the said Grameen Dak Sewak.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Ravi Kumar through VC Respondent: Absent
The appellant stated that inspite of the FAA’s order dated 3/5/2013 the information sought by him in his RTI application dated 1/3/2013 has not been provided. He further stated that he has been waiting for the information since long and should be compensated for inconvenience and detriment caused to him due to non-provision of the information. The CPIO is not present inspite of being put on notice for this hearing.
It is seen that a Coordinate Bench of the Commission in its decision dated 08/11/2012 [file no. CIC/SM/A/2012/000285 – Ravi Shankar Prasad Verma vs. Department of Economic Affairs] has held as under:-
“4. We have carefully considered the facts of the case. While the decision of the CPIO initially not to disclose the information might have some basis in view of the fact that the selection process was on and the records of the selection constituted Cabinet papers, there was no case for not disclosing the information once the Appellate Authority so directed. It must be clearly understood that whenever the public authority is of the view that the order of the Appellate Authority cannot be implemented, the only course open is to challenge the order before the CIC.
We wish the public authority had done this instead of deciding not to implement the order of the Appellate Authority.”
Respectfully following the aforesaid decision we direct the CPIO to comply with the FAA’s order dated 03/05/2013 and provide the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application dated 01/03/2013, free of cost, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. From the foregoing it is apparent that the appellant has not received any information in response to the FAA’s order dated 03/05/2013. For the inconvenience caused to him, he deserves to be compensated. Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in the CIC in Section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act we direct the department to compensate him by an amount of Rs.1000/- for the inconvenience and detriment caused to him. Accordingly, the CPIO should ensure that this amount is remitted to the appellant by demand draft/pay order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Mr. Ravi Kumar v. Department of Posts in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/001964/5925