Appellant sought specific information related to his deceased son, but the Respondent chosen to give vague reply to the Appellant; It shows the clear malafide intent of the PIO in obstructing basic information - CIC: Re-examine and give point-wise reply
24 Feb, 2024Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
“Please provide the following details in soft copy i.e. through email of Late Sh. Shashi Kadyan (Enrollment no. 69588/180) who was posted in Civil Defence Volunteer as a QRV Driver (DDMA) Alipur Delhi to Sh. Ram Niwas, father of the deceased:
1. Please provide the date of joining of Late Sh. Shashi Kadyan (Enrollment no. 69588/180).
2. Please provide posting details of Late Sh. Shashi Kadyan (Enrollment no. 69588/180) till his death.
3. Please provide a list of officers under whom Late Sh. Shashi Kadyan (Enrollment no. 69588/180) was working for.
4. Please provide a copy of the attendance of Late Sh. Shashi Kadyan (Enrollment no. 69588/180) for the period: December 2020 to March 2021.
5.Please provide the period of employment of Late Sh. Shashi Kadyan (Enrollment no. 69588/180).
6. Please provide the salary details paid to Late Sh. Shashi Kadyan (Enrollment no. 69588/180) for the period: December 2020 to March 2021.”
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 09.12.2022 stating as under:
“Point No. 1 & 2.
As per the records of the Civil Defence Office, North District, the sought information is not available in the file O.ADM/North/Misc./2020/3438 dated 12.01.2021.
Point No. 3, 4, 5 & 6.
It does not pertain to District Civil Defence Office, North.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.11.2022. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Not Present.
The Appellant and the Respondent did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice in advance.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant is aggrieved that no information was provided to him by the Respondent till date.
The Commission further observes that the reply given by the CPIO is vague and misleading and RTI Act is meant to promote transparency, and hence vague replies are contrary to the spirit of the Act.
The Appellant has sought specific information related to his deceased son, but the Respondent chosen to give vague reply to the Appellant. If the information pertains to some other CPIO then the RTI application of the Appellant should have been transferred to the concerned CPIO under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act but no efforts were made by him. It shows the clear mala fide intent of the CPIO in obstructing such basic information.
In view of the above observations, the Respondent is directed to re-examine the RTI application dated 06.10.2022 of the Appellant and give point-wise reply/information to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the information sought pertains to some other department/CPIO, then the Respondent is directed to take assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act to collect information, from the concerned CPIO, as sought in the RTI application and provide reply/information to the Appellant.
Moreover, the Appellant has chosen not to participate in the hearing to argue his case, despite the service of hearing notice in advance. In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further direction is required in this case.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ram Niwas v. Office of the District Magistrate, Controller Civil Defense, CIC/REVDP/A/2023/609841; Date of Decision : 19-02-2024