Information specifying the dates on which the Presiding Officer was in attendance for hearings at the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - CIC took an adverse view of the delay and cautioned the public authority to adhere to the timeline under RTI Act

Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

“Please provide detailed information specifying the exact dates on which the Presiding Officer was in attendance for hearings at the Central Government Industrial Tribunal effective from the 1st of January 2017 until the date of the Public Information Officer response.”

Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.12.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 23.02.2025 has been received from the Appellant stating that he had sought the same information from 11 CGITs all over the country and he is not satisfied with the response received from the Respondent.

A written submission dated 24.02.2025 has been received from PIO, CGIT, Chennai whereby tenure and name of presiding officer from 01.01.2017 till date have been provided. Explaining the delay in response, the Respondent stated that since the login credentials have not been received by them from the Ministry of Labour and Employment, the relevant RTI application could not be accessed and responded in a timely manner.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Present through video conference

Respondent: Shri K Vasudevan – CPIO/Secretary to Court, Chennai was present during hearing through video conference.

Both parties reiterated their respective contentions with the Respondent referring to the written submission dated 24.02.2025 mentioned hereinabove.

Decision:

Upon hearing both parties and considering the response sent by the PIO, CGIT, Guwahati attached by the Appellant in the file, the CPIO/CGIT, Chennai is hereby directed to revisit the queries raised by the Appellant and furnish an accurate reply providing information strictly in terms of the provisions of the Act, ensuring that information which is expressly barred under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act is redacted invoking provisions under Section 10 of the RTI Act, if deemed necessary. The reply shall be sent to the Appellant within four weeks of receipt of this order and a compliance report must be submitted by the Respondent before the Commission within one week thereafter.

Perusal of the records of the case reveal that response has been furnished now to the Appellant, in violation of the timeline laid down under the RTI Act. The Commission takes an adverse view of the delay and cautions the public authority to strictly adhere to the timeline as mandated under the RTI Act, while responding to RTI queries, in future, failing which appropriate penal action shall be initiated as per law.

The appeal is disposed of with the above observation.

Heeralal Samariya

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Satish Ashok Sherkhane v. Office of the Dy. CLC(C), Chennai, CIC/ODYCH/A/2024/607295; Date of Decision : 04.03.2025