PIO: There is no practice of formal handing/taking over of the Representational Grant register/documents between an officer and his successor in the O/o Head of Chancery - CIC: Reply provided by the PIO is not appropriate; provide an appropriate response
12 Apr, 2019O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Consulate General of India, Guangzhou, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi seeking copies of documentary proof of handing/taking over of Representational Grant (RG) register/documents in respect of Mr. Sailas Thangal, Consul General (CG) and Mr. T J Suresh, Head of Chancery (HOC) for last five years.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO had deliberately denied information stating that no such information is available in this post. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete information as sought by him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant’s representative Shri Avdhesh Kumar and the respondent Ms. Archana Monga, S.O. (RTI), Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi were present in person.
4. The appellant’s representative submitted that the appellant has sought a copy of the documentary proof of handing/taking over of Representational Grant (RG) register/documents in respect of Mr. Sailas Thangal, Consul General (CG) and Mr. T J Suresh, Head of Chancery (HOC) for last five years. However, the CPIO denied the information stating that no such information is available in the Post (office). He stated that he had sought the information from the Head of Chancery and not the Post.
5. The respondent submitted that there is no practice of formal handing/taking over of the RG register/documents between an officer and his successor in the O/o Head of Chancery. Hence, the appellant was informed that no information is available in material form, in this regard, vide letter dated 02.01.2018.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the reply provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 02.01.2018 is not appropriate as the appellant has sought information pertaining to the records of the O/o Head of Chancery, however, the CPIO informed him that no such information is available in the Post. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide an appropriate response to the appellant’s RTI application, to him within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Sanjeev Kumar v. CPIO, Consulate General of India, Guangzhou (China), Ministry of External Affairs in Second Appeal No. CIC/CGIGC/A/2018/110821, Date 08.03.2019