R.K. JAIN Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the parties are present. The appellant at the very outset stated that this case has been wrongly registered as an appeal whereas he had filed a complaint u/s. 18 and the same may be treated as a complaint case. The Commission accepts the same.

(2.) THE complainant filed an RTI application on 21.06.2011, seeking information regarding a fax received from Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical), along with seeking inspection of all records/files/documents in this regard. On not receiving any reply from the CPIO within prescribed time, he filed first appeal against deemed refusal on the part of the PIO. The FAA in his order Dt. 30.09.2011 directed the CPIO to provide the information on point (A) and allow the inspection of the concerned file.

(3.) THE complainant stated that his RTI was filed on 21.06.2011 whereas the same was diarized on 01.08.2011 i.e. a delay of more than a month. He further quoted paras 4 to 7 of the FAA's order dated 30.09.2011, which was complied on 02.07.2013 i.e. after filing of the instant complaint. He stated that there has been a delay of more than 400 days in providing the information. However, the two officials responsible for the delay of first 100 days are Shri Mohinder Singh and Shri S.K. Verma, who is present today. The complainant further stated that this is a case of non -compliance of FAA's order Dt. 30.09.2011. He stated that it should have either been complied with or appealed against. The complainant also alleged that the Shri S.K. Verma had requested the competent authority for recusing himself from dealing with 10 RTI applications filed by Shri R.K. Jain, and the same request was rejected. A copy of the said note -sheet has been submitted before the Commission. However, on a complaint filed by the complainant for removal of Shri S.K. Verma due to his poor track record and various irregularities, manipulations and corrupt practices obstructing him to function as a facilitator of information, Shri S.K. Verma was removed from the post of CPIO on 23.04.2012. The complainant has submitted relevant documents in this regard. The Commission does not consider these allegations by the complainant as relevant and the same are rejected.