Central Information CommissionMrk R Manilal vs Ministry Of Consumer Aff., Food, & ... on 12 August, 2015CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

                              Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
                                 Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
                                          Website: cic.gov.in

                                                                        File No. CIC/KY/A/2015/00682
Appellant                :        Shri K.R. Manilal
                                  Kaniyankattu House, South of N.S.S. Karayogam,
                                  Kadavanthra, Kochi-682020

Public Authority         :        The CPIO
                                  National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
                                  Upbhokta Nyay Bhawan, F-Block,
                                  GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi-110023

Date of Hearing          :        12.08.2015
Date of Decision         :        12.08.2015

Presence:
       Appellant         :        Absent
       CPIO              :        Shri Yatinder Kr. Sakkarwal, UDC

            FACTS:I. Vide RTI application dated 09.01.2015, the appellant sought information on the 9
            issues.II. CPIO, vide its response dated 07.05.2015, has provided the part information to the
            appellant.III.         The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 18.05.2015, as desired information not
            provided.IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide his order dated 09.06.2015, allowed the Appellant
            for the inspection.V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 22.06.2015, are contained in the Memorandum
            of Appeal.HEARING
            Appellant opted to be absent despite of our due notice to him. However, Sh. Shri
            Yatinder Kr. Sakkarwal, UDC, appeared before the Commission without any authorization
            from the competent authority therefore he was not permitted.DECISION

                It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 09.01.2015,
            sought information from the respondents on nine issues. Respondents, vide their response
            dated 07.05.2015, allegedly provided the required information to the appellant. Being
            aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 18.05.2015 before
           the FAA, who vide his order dated 09.06.2015, allowed the Appellant for the inspection.
          Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.......2-2-2.    However on careful perusal of the nature of issues as raised by the appellant in his RTI
          application dated 09.01.2015 and the respondent's response dated 07.05.2015, it is
          revealed that the respondents have provided the required information against all issues
          except issues no. 5 & 6.3.    Further, learned FAA, vide his order dated 09.06.2015, disposed of the FA by requesting the
          appellant to have the inspection of the relevant records and pin point the required
          documents of which the photocopies are needed.4.    It is worth to mention here that as persection 2(j)(i)of the RTI Act 2005, the right of
          inspection of relevant record vested with the appellant and not with the respondents. As
          such, if the respondents have been insisting of any applicant to have the inspection of the
          relevant record that is not legally tenable. However, it is having a legal force in vice-versa
          situation.5.    The Commission perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised
          by the appellant in his RTI application dated 09.01.2015, respondent's response dated
          07.05.2015, FAA's order dated 09.06.2015 and also the grounds of memorandum of second
          appeal.6.    The Commission is of the considered view that the appellant has been deprived by the
          respondents deliberately from having the benefits of theRTI Act2005, even after lapse of
          more than twenty months period. Thus, the respondents have defeated the very
          purpose of theRTI Act2005 for which it was legislated by Parliament of India. As such, the
          Commission feels that appellant's second appeal deserves to be allowed partly i.e. against
          issues no. 5 & 6. Therefore, it is allowed accordingly.7.    In view of the above, the respondents are hereby directed to provide the complete and
          categorical information, against issues no. 5 & 6, to the appellant, in accordance with
          the provisions ofRTI Act2005, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under
          intimation to this Commission. If need be,Section 5(4)of the RTI Act 2005 be also
          invoked in the matter.The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.Sd/-(M.A. Khan Yusufi)
                                                                             Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy
 (Prakash)
Deputy Registrar
                                                   ......2-2-The CPIO
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Upbhokta Nyay Bhawan F-Block,
GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi-110023


Shri K.R. Manilal
Kaniyankattu House,
South of N.S.S. Karayogam,
Kadavanthra, Kochi-682020