D.S. SAKSENA Vs. THE UNDER SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per the relief clause (Exhibit -4) of the said petition, the required information, as asked for, be provided to the complainant. However, nowhere it has been prayed in the petition to penalize the respondents under section 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act 2005, though the petition has been filed under section 18(1) of the RTI Act 2005. As such, the petition may not be construed as complaint but a Second Appeal. Therefore, it is being dealt with Second Appeal accordingly.

(2.) IT is to be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 15.04.2013, sought information from the respondents on three issues as contained therein. Respondents vide their responses dated 09.05.2013 and 09.07.2013, allegedly not provided the required information to the appellant on all three issues. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 01.08.2013 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 22.08.2013, upheld the decision of CPIO. However, CPIO was further directed to check up whether any correspondence from CBDT is available and if so, the same may be provided to the appellant.

(3.) IT is worth to mention here that respondents, vide their response dated 09.05.2013, asked the appellant that specific points on which the information, sought for, may be clarified. On being queried by the Commission, as to what is the ambiguity involved in the issues of the RTI application. On this very aspect, no plausible and convincing grounds mentioned by Sh. S.N. Bharti, CPIO. The Commission shocks to observe the way of working of under secretary.