Particulars of the competent authority authorized for appointment of Chief Engineer in PWD, copies of rules that empowers the competent authority for such appointment was sought - PIO: appointment was as per norms & practice - CIC: provide the information
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 8 42013 seeking information on in context of the Public Works Department of Daman & Diu and other related issues. The appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 682013. The FAA responded on 1092013 and stated that point nos. 1 to 5 pertained to the CPD Desk, Ministry of Home Affairs and point nos. 6 to 11 pertained to the UT Administration of Daman & Diu. The PIO, UT Administration of Daman & Diu responded on 1972013 providing information to the appellant on points 6 to 11 of the RTI application. In so far as point nos. 1 to 5 are concerned, the PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs responded on 3152013 to the appellant. The appellant filed a second appeal with the Commission on 28112013.
2. The appellant was heard through videoconferencing. One respondent was personally present during the hearing and another respondent was heard through videoconferencing.
3. The appellant referred to his RTI application and in this context stated that on 2092010 he had filed a representation with the authorities about the “encroachment” by Shri R.N. Singh, Chief Engineer on the post of Chief Engineer. The appellant also filed an RTI application with the Ministry of Home Affairs on 842013. The appellant said that the MHA instead of giving specific answers gave evasive response and deliberately avoided giving any clear cut responses.
4. The respondent stated that they were aware of the RTI application of 842013 in which 11 points have been raised by the appellant. The respondent said that these points by and large pertain to the role of the Chief Engineer and functioning of a certain individual in the course of Chief Engineer.
5. The respondent said that out of 11 points, first 5 points were of the Ministry of Home Affairs jurisdiction whereas other 6 to 11 points pertained more to the UT Administration of Daman & Diu. The respondent stated that first 5 points were responded to by the MHA on 3152013 and the remaining 6 points were responded to by the UT Government on 1972013. The respondent said that he feels that what the MHA has responded to has addressed the RTI application and similarly so has the UT Administration of Daman & Diu. 6. The respondent said that the questions had also focused on the manner of this particular individual’s appointment as Chief Engineer for which the respondent explained that this appointment was as per norms and practice and for this appointment there was no additional burden on the State budget.
7. During the course of the hearing, the appellant stated that he wanted the information on the following two points: (a) particulars of the competent authority authorized for such appointment/deputation/delegation of powers to Chief Engineer in Public Works Department of the Union Territory under reference; and (b) copies of circulars, memo, service rules or any other documents that empowers said competent authority for such appointment/deputation/delegation of powers to Chief Engineer.
8. The respondent is directed to provide information to the appellant as per para 7 above in context of the RTI application within 30 days of this order. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Sanjay K. Dalal v. Ministry of Home Affairs in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2013/002337/09855 Appeal No.CIC/VS/A/2013/002337