Appellant sought a certified copy of the written submissions made by him to CIC - PIO: There is no provision for providing certified copy of documents provided by the appellant - FAA relied on Madras High Court decision - CIC: PIO’s reply is just & proper

Information Sought:

The Appellant has stated that he had filed written submissions at CIC in respect of his second appeal No.CIC/SBIND/A/2017/120059 on 23/07/2018. In this connection, he has sought a certified copy of the said written submissions.

Grounds for Second Appeal

The CPIO has not provided the satisfactory information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that certified copy means, stamp has to be affixed and designated officer has to sign the document and give it. He admitted that the Commission cannot certify a document not generated by them but was concerned that his written submissions was not received at the time of decision.

On a query, Shri Murthi the present CPIO submitted that his predecessor had dealt with the present RTI application and the written submissions dated 23.07.2018 of the appellant were available on their record. He further submitted that the said written submissions letter was received on 27.07.2018, registered in CIC under Dy. No. 147078, are available on record at pages 50-97 of the PDF file no. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/120059.

Furhermore, the CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply dated 28.02.2019.

Observations:

Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 28.02.2019 replied to the appellant that there is no provision for providing certified copy of the documents provided by the appellant to the appellant himself. The FAA vide order dated 14.03.2019 upheld the CPIO’s reply by relying on a decision of the Madras High Court in W.P no. 26781 of 2013. The Commission could not find any flaw in the CPIO’s reply. The CPIO’s reply is therefore considered just and proper.

Decision:

In view of the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter and accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna

Information Commissioner

Citation: Prakash Ishwarbhai Patel v. RTI Cell, Central Information Commission in File No.: - CIC/CICOM/A/2019/116199, Date of Decision: 23/04/2021