CIC: Despite being entrusted with a duty of replying to RTI Applications in a time bound manner, the PIO failed to ensure proper service of the reply; PIO warned to ensure future correspondences under RTI Act are sent through registered/speed post only

The appellant claimed to have not received the reply. Upon Commissions query regarding mode of dispatch the PIO submitted that said reply was sent via ordinary post. CIC took grave exception to the conduct of then PIO in having failed to send the reply on the instant RTI Application through registered/speed post. CIC: It is appalling to note on the part of then PIO that despite being entrusted with a statutory duty of replying to RTI Applications in a time bound manner, he failed to ensure proper service of the reply under reference. PIO is hereby warned to ensure in future that correspondences under RTI Act are sent through registered/speed post only.

Information sought:

The Appellant sought following 18 points information:

………..

Having not received any response from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2019. The FAA vide order dated 22.08.2019 directed the PIO to provide the relevant information.

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The PIO has not provided information to the Appellant.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present: -

Appellant: represented by Keshav Kumar

Respondent: Vinod J Rathod, AE(P) & PIO, Deputy Director-(RTI Section), Office of the Chief Engineer, present in person

Rep. of the appellant stated that they have not received any information from the PIO till date.

PIO submitted an opportunity of inspection was provided to the appellant on 04.06.2019 by then PIO. However, same was not availed till date. He further submitted that if appellant desires then he can once again inspect the relevant records.

Upon Commissions query regarding mode of dispatch the PIO submitted that said reply was sent via ordinary post. Upon Commissions instance, Rep. of the appellant affirmed to the same. Commission further directed to fix the date and time of the inspection during hearing. Both the parties mutually decided the date I.e. 13.04.2021 at 11:00 Am.

Decision:

Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that reply provided by then PIO was send through ordinary post. Commission takes grave exception to the conduct of then PIO in having failed to send the reply on the instant RTI Application through registered/speed post. It is appalling to note on the part of then PIO that despite being entrusted with a statutory duty of replying to RTI Applications in a time bound manner, he failed to ensure proper service of the reply under reference. PIO is hereby warned to ensure in future that correspondences under RTI Act are sent through registered/speed post only.

The present PIO will ensure service of this order to then PIO.

Now, Commission has gone through the case records and observes that the instant RTI Applications seeks information pertaining to certain construction projects of the Respondent Authority and same does not conform to the 500-word limit prescribed under Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. Even further, information sought in the instant RTI Applications are voluminous and contains unspecific information requiring interpretation and deduction of the PIO.

However, during the process of hearing both the parties have mutually decided to inspection of record and accordingly, directs the PIO to once again provide an opportunity of inspection of relevant and available records to the Appellant as sought in instant RTI Application, on a mutually decided date & time decided during the course of hearing i.e. 13.04.2021 at 11:00 Am. Further, copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should be provided free of cost upto 25 pages and beyond that, prescribed fees shall be charged as per Rule 4 of RTI Rules, 2012. Commission’s directions should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya

Information Commissioner

Citation: Rajesh Kumar (Advocate) v. Public Works Department (Government of NCT of Delhi) in Second Appeal No.: CIC/PWDDL/A/2019/143986, Date of Decision: 01-04-2021