PIO: The relevant file is not traceable - CIC: In the absence of sufficient explanation as to efforts made to trace the file, action taken against the custodian of the file & steps initiated to restructure the missing file, this defence is not accepted

The appellant has filed the two appeals against the same Public Authority and hence they are heard together.

FACTS

3. The appellant submitted that through his first RTI application dated 1642013  [FileNo.CIC/DS/A/2013/002184SA], he is seeking information relating to the recovery of a sum of Rs.58,153/due to him from a company by name, M/s Micronix India, consequent up on the order against the said defaulting company. The PIO has given the reply by his letter dated 1072013. Not satisfied, the appellant filed first appeal before the FAA who by his order dated 872013 directed the PIO to provide reply/information to the appellant within one week of receipt of his order.

4. In the second case [File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/002185SA], the appellant by his RTI application dated 2442013, sought to know the status of recovery of Rs.50,000/due to him, from another company by name, M/s Kampari Exports, Tuglakabad, Delhi, consequent upon order against the same defaulting company. The PIO has given reply by his letter dated 1562013. Not satisfied, the appellant filed first appeal before the FAA, who by his order dated 172013, directed SPIO/SDM(Kalkaji) to provide reply/information within two weeks without fail.

5. Claiming that the respondent authority has not furnished complete information, the appellant filed 2nd appeal before the Commission in both the cases.

Decision:

6. Heard the submissions made by both the parties. In the first case [File  No.CIC/DS/A/2013/002184SA], the appellant submitted that the Writ Petition filed by the management of the defaulting company was dismissed in 2010 by the Delhi High Court, directing the respondent authority to recover the sum due from the said company to the appellant. Thus he had to fight for this amount Rs.58,153/ for five years in the Labour Court and waiting for the last one year to get the amount. On the other hand, the respondent/PIO submitted that the said defaulting company has since wound up its operations in Delhi and shifted to Faridabad, Govt. of Haryana and hence no action lies on their part. She also stated that the relevant file is not traceable. The Commission does not accept this defense of losing the file by the respondent authority, in the absence of sufficient explanation by the respondent authority as to, what efforts were made by them to trace the file, what action was taken against the custodian of the file and what steps they initiated to restructure the missing file. The Commission, therefore, directs the PIO/SDM to file an affidavit in this regard, i.e when the file was found to be lost, what efforts were initiated by them to trace the file, what action was taken against the persons responsible for losing the file and what alternative steps initiated by them to reconstruct the missing file, etc. The affidavit should be filed within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, with a copy to the appellant. The Commission also recommends to the respondent authority to forward the recovery certificate to the appropriate authority under whose jurisdiction; the defaulting company has shifted its operations and intimate the same to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The first appeal (File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/002184SA) is disposed of accordingly.

7. In the Second case [CIC/DS/A/2013/002185SA], the respondent authority submitted that the said defaulting company has not been found by their Bailiff, who was sent for searching the same in Tughlakabad area. They also approached the concerned SHO, three times to find out to which address the attachment notice has to be served. But the appellant contended that one factory of the defaulting company is still operating in that area and the Bailiff deputed by the respondent authority is giving wrong report by colluding with the said company. He also submitted that he has lodged a complaint against the Bailiff in this regard. In this regard, the appellant is advised to furnish a copy of the complaint to the Respondent, who after taking necessary action as per the procedure intimate the same to the appellant. The Commission hereby directs the PIO to file an affidavit stating the efforts taken by them with regard to the recovery certificate, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Sh. Mahinder Pal Singh v. Sub Divisional Magistrate (Kalkaji), GNCTD in (1)File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/002184SA (2)File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/002185SA