CIC: It is incumbent upon the FAA to dispose of the appeal within the stipulated time period - CIC: Non-disposal of first appeal not only deprives the appellant of his right to get a formal order but also adds to the burden of the CIC; FAA cautioned

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.05.2022 seeking information on the following points:-

(i) Is there any defined periodicity for rent revision & rent lease renewal for the buildings taken on rent by Department of Post, Govt. of India?

(ii) What is the average time taken in the rent revisions, finalized during previous 5 years, under the Bihar Circle.

(iii) There has been given a request for rent enhancement and rent lease agreement for the Post Office Building of SohSarai (Nalanda) w.e.f. 01.04.2017. The request letter has been submitted in March 2017, itself. Is there any specific reason for not revising the rent lease agreement so far? Etc.

2. Perusal of the records submitted by the appellant while filing the second appeal dated 18.08.2021 reveals that neither the CPIO nor the FAA provided any information or any reply to the appellant.

3. Aggrieved by the non-response of the CPIO as well as by the FAA, the appellant filed second appeal before the Commission and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to furnish the requisite information.

4. The appellant was present at the VC Venue and on behalf of the respondent Shri Ashok Kumar Chowdhary, Assistant Director & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

5. The appellant submitted that an incomplete reply was given to him and there was a delay of 05 months in providing a reply to him. He also submitted that till date no order has been passed by the FAA.

6. The respondent while reiterating the contents of his written submissions dated 01.12.2023 submitted that a point-wise reply was given to the appellant on 25.11.2022. He also submitted that the finalization of the rent by FRAC has been taken and suitable rent enhancement will be paid to the house owner.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observed that even though a suitable, point-wise reply was given to the appellant, however, the same was given after a delay of 05 months and 19 days. The explanation of the CPIO that the delay had occurred because of the fact that the FRAC was under process does not seem to be justified as even if FRAC was under process, the CPIO was bound to provide an interim reply to the appellant informing him that a final reply can be provided after the completion of FRAC. The Commission therefore expresses its displeasure over the conduct of the CPIO for giving a delayed reply to the appellant. He is cautioned to remain careful with regard to the timelines fixed under the RTI Act. He should also note that if such a lapse is repeated in future, the Commission will be constrained to take strict action against him.

8. With regard to the non-disposal of the first appeal by the FAA, it is pertinent to mention here that per Section 19(6) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing. of the RTI Act, an appeal under sub-section (1) or (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing. From a plain reading of this section, it is clear that it is incumbent upon the FAA to dispose of the appeal within the stipulated time period. Non-disposal of the first appeal in any organisation not only deprives the appellant of his right to get a formal order on his appeal but also adds to the burden of the Commission being the Second Appellate forum. The Commission, therefore, cautions the FAA to strictly follow the RTI regime while disposing of appeals and pass a speaking order, after taking due cognizance of the merits of each case. A copy of this order is marked to the concerned FAA for his information. The CPIO is directed to serve a copy of this order on the concerned FAA immediately upon the receipt of the order.

9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Rajeev Ranjan v. Department of Posts, CIC/POSTS/A/2022/657661; Date of Decision: 05.12.2023