Information relating to a certain reply given by appellant’s deceased husband in response to a circular like the date of dispatch, the name of branch manager etc. - PIO: this particular copy of the letter is not available with them - CIC: denial upheld
5 Feb, 2014Information relating to a certain reply given by appellant’s deceased husband in response to a circular like the date of dispatch, the name of branch manager etc. - PIO: this particular copy of the letter is not available with them - Respondent: the appellant was in the habit of filing number of RTI applications and following up those applications through the entire appellate mechanism right up to the CIC thereby wasting everybody's time - CIC: denial upheld
ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 20.09.2012 seeking information pertaining to a certain circular regarding nonreceipt of any profitable investment by officials without permission.
2. The PIO responded on 28.09.2012 and denied information to the appellant as the information pertained to third party and not in the public interest. The appellant filed a first appeal on 17.10.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA response is not on record. The appellant filed a second appeal on 04.02.2012 with the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to her RTI application of 20.09.2012 and stated that she had sought information relating to a certain reply given by her deceased husband on 10.09.1993 in response to circular no.106/92. The appellant stated that she wanted to know the date of dispatch, who was the branch manager who has forwarded and date of receipt of the response of the deceased in the HO.
5. The respondent stated that this particular copy of the letter is not available with them. The respondent stated that the CPIO in his reply of 28.09.2012 had already responded that the information sought related to third party and not of public interest.
6. The respondent further stated that the appellant was in the habit of filing number of RTI applications and following up those applications through the entire appellate mechanism right up to the CIC thereby wasting everybody's time.
Decision:
7. The order of the respondent CPIO is upheld. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Smt. Rajjo Devi v. Rajasthan Gramin Bank in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2013/000322/05667