M. HAROON SIDDIQUI Vs. CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE files contain a complaint (File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000532) and an appeal (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000782), filed by the Complainant/Appellant, regarding his RTI applications dated 21.6.2014 and 20.12.2013, seeking information on various issues. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he has approached the CIC in complaint and appeal in the two cases.

(2.) THE Respondents stated that in the RTI application dated 21.6.2014 (File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000532), the Complainant enquired about the action taken on a letter dated 4.4.2014, written by him to the General Manager/FAA, a copy of which was enclosed with the RTI application. They further submitted that the above letter could not be traced out in their office despite their best efforts and a response was sent to the Complainant on 6.4.2015, explaining the above position. They also stated that from a copy of the letter dated 4.4.2014, sent by the Complainant, they noted that it pertained to his request for cancellation of a dealership in Allahabad. The position on this matter was, therefore, also explained in the reply dated 6.4.2015 sent to him. The Complainant stated that he had sent his letter dated 4.4.2014 to the Respondents by registered post. He also stated that the CPIO's reply dated 6.4.2015 to his RTI application dated 21.6.2014 was sent with considerable delay. The Respondents reiterated that they have made a thorough search for the letter dated 4.4.2014, but have not found it on their records. With regard to the delay, they stated that the Complainant has been following up with them the issue concerning his request for cancellation of dealership. The position on this issue was explained to him earlier also vide the CPIO's letter dated 26.6.2014 in response to his RTI application dated 17.4.2014.

(3.) WE have considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties before us in regard to the RTI application dated 21.6.2014. It is seen that point -wise reply, based on the records of the public authority, has been given by the CPIO on 6.4.2015. Further, the position regarding the main point in the letter dated 4.4.2014, regarding cancellation of dealership was explained to the Complainant earlier also, as stated above. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to enquire further into this complaint.