Central Information Commission: In a second appeal against non-receipt of information regarding a Right to Information (RTI) application, a single-member bench of Anandi Ramalingam, Information Commissioner, disposed of the second appeal as the current Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)’s reply dated 11-11-2024 addressed the queries satisfactorily.
In the instant matter, the appellant filed an RTI application on 30-03-2023, seeking specific information related to a complaint letter sent via Speed Post on 12-08-2021 to the Information Commissioner. The information sought included details of the diary number, cognizance, and action taken by the Commission on the complaint, copies of notices or reminders sent to the CPIO’s office and name, designation, and contact details of the First Appellate Officer (FAO).
After receiving no response to the RTI application, the appellant filed a first appeal on 11-05-2023. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the CPIO to provide an offline reply by 29-05-2023. Aggrieved by the non-receipt of information, the appellant filed the present second appeal on 05-10-2023.
The Appellant contended that no response was received to the RTI application till date. On the other hand, the respondent claimed that a reply was provided on 08-08-2023, but it was unrelated to the RTI application under reference. The Respondent acknowledged the lapse and attributed it to the previous CPIO, whose employment had since been terminated. It was informed that a fresh reply dated 11-11-2024 was submitted by the current CPIO, addressing the queries in accordance with the RTI Act.
The CIC noted severe procedural lapses by the previous CPIO, including, failure to provide a timely response to the RTI application and non-compliance with the FAA’s directive to reply by the specified date. The CIC acknowledged that the present CPIO had addressed the RTI queries through a reply dated 11.11.2024, after rechecking the records.
The CIC expressed grave displeasure at the mishandling of the RTI application, citing the lack of checks and balances in the RTI mechanism of the CIC. The CIC criticised the FAA’s role for issuing directions without ensuring compliance or follow-up.
The CIC disposed of the second appeal as the current CPIO’s reply dated 11-11-2024 addressed the queries satisfactorily. The CIC recommended strengthening the internal mechanisms to prevent similar lapses in the future and ensure that the FAA plays a more proactive role in ensuring compliance with its directives.
[Shriniwas Sharma v. Central Information Commission, Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/140505, Decided on 31-12-2024]