Irregularities in Ambedkar Hastshilp Vikas Yojna alleged - action taken on complaint sought - CIC: respondents directed to check if any enquiry has been conducted on the complaints mentioned in the Appellant’s RTI application and provide a copy of report
These two appeals, filed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Dubey against Office of Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), Lucknow, were taken up for hearing on 21.11.2013 when the Respondents were present through Shri B.S. Singh, Asstt. Director and Shri M.I. Khan, CTO. The Appellant was, however, not present.
2. Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001180SS of the Appellant relates to his RTI application dated 18.02.2013 wherein he sought to know the action taken on his complaint dated 07.01.2013. In this complaint, it was alleged that there had been irregularities on the part of the Regional Screening Committee of Uttar Pradesh while making recommendation with respect to Ambedkar Hastshilp Vikas Yojna for the year 20.12.13. The Appellant also requested for copy of guideline under which said recommendation was made. This application was replied to by the CPIO vide letter dated 21.03.2013 stating that there is no need for any enquiry in the matter as the action taken by them is as per the guideline. He also stated that copy of guideline has already been provided to the Appellant earlier by letter dated 05.11.2012. Being dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 01.04.2013 which the Appellate Authority decided vide his order dated 15.04.2013 holding that information has been provided to the Appellant.
3. Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001255SS of the Appellant relates to his RTI application dated 01.03.2013 wherein he sought to know the action taken on his complaint dated 18.02.2013. The allegations leveled in this complaint were regarding corruption (in respect of award of grading to the organizations) in Ambedkar Hastshilp Vikas Yojna for the year 201213. The Appellant also, interalia, wanted to obtain copies of 80 G certificate, balance sheet etc. of said organizations. This application was replied to by the CPIO vide letter dated 02.04.2013, dissatisfied with which the Appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 09.04.2013. The Appellate Authority dismissed this appeal by an order dated 03.05.2013 holding that the Appellant has been offered the inspection of relevant records thrice. He in this order made a mention of a reply dated 13/14.03.2013 of the CPIO by which the Appellant was advised to inspect the relevant records from 25.03.2013 to 29.03.2013 at Lucknow office of the public authority. He also referred to an order dated 06.02.2013 of the Commission (passed in relation to another RTI application dated 13.08.2012 of the Appellant seeking information on the similar issue) and stated that in compliance with said order, the Appellant has been offered the inspection of records thrice.
4. Aggrieved by the replies of the Respondents, the Appellant filed the present appeals before the Commission complaining that the Appellate Authority has passed “nonspeaking” orders and that no information has been provided to him in respect of action taken on his complaints dated 07.01.2013 and 18.02.2013 (mentioned in his RTI applications)
5. During the hearing, the Respondents produce a letter dated 31.12.2012 - written by Bhupendra Singh, Deputy Director (H), Office of the Development Commissioner (H), Lucknow to Shri Virendra Kumar, Sr. Assistant Director (CC), Office of DC (H), New Delhi - providing comments on a complaint of the Appellant apparently on the same issue. However, it is not clear whether this letter deals with the instant complaints (mentioned in the RTI application) of the Appellant or not. The Respondents, present during the hearing, also are not able to state whether any enquiry has been conducted on the complaints, mentioned in the Appellant’s present RTI application, or not.
6. In the circumstances above, the Respondents are hereby directed to check whether any enquiry has been conducted on the complaints mentioned in the Appellant’s RTI application and provide a copy of enquiry report to the Appellant. In the event, no enquiry has been conducted on said complaints, the Respondents should provide the factual information to the Appellant after conducting an enquiry on said complaints.
7. Appeals are disposed of with the above directions, which are to be complied with within 3 weeks of receipt of this order.
Citation: Shri Ramesh Kumar Dubey v. Office of the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) in Case No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001180SS, Case No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001255SS