RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT -ITPO

Details of Appeal/Decision of First Appellate Authority for the year 2014-15 under RTI Act

Sl.
No

ID No. and Name of the applicant

Ground of Appeal

Decision of First Appellate Authority/remarks

1.

ITPO/PIC/Appeal/03/12/2014
Shri Banarasi Ram, Delhi

Ref. No.ITPO/PIC/03/12/2014 dated 23.04.2014.
“Date of Submission of application 26.03.2014 for inspection and expiry date of inspection 25.4.2014.

Fixed date of inspection 23.5.2014.

Penalty of Rs.25,000/- @ Rs.250/- per day, limit Rs.25,000/-.  Hence fine of amount Rs.25,000/- may please be recovered from negligent official for delaying to provide documents for inspection with in stipulated period of time.

The First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by DPIO, ITPO and first Appeal of the applicant/appellant has observed that inspection sought by the applicant is never denied, since applicant was informed on 23.4.2014 before the stipulated period 30 days that he may inspect the relevant document on 23.5.2014 at 3.00 p.m. Since roster was being updated the time for inspection was given on 23.5.2014.  The FAA, ITPO ruled that appellant/applicant may be informed that he may inspect the roster on 12.05.2014 at 3.00 p.m. or as per his convenience since the updated roster is ready. 

2.

ITPO/PIC/Appeal/04/02/2014
Shri Navneet Kumar Raman

As per reference NO.4-ITPO(12)/E.I/12 dated 27.1.2014 regarding recruitment to the post of Dy. Manager (GC), ITPO.  In your information sought and intimated to  me in your reference No.ITPO/PIC/04/02/2014 dated 22.4.2014 is not true & correct.  I am appeal in the First Appellate Authority, Ms. V. Meera.”

The First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by DPIO, ITPO and first Appeal of the applicant/appellant has observed that information furnished by DPIO, ITPO was corresponding to the queries of the appellant raised in RTI application and was justified.  The appellant, in his appeal dated 19.05.2014, has not specified the point against which the information provided to him is not true or incorrect. FAA ruled that the applicant may be again provided following point-wise information/ document:

  1. Intimation of written test was e-mailed to the applicant on 25.01.2014, well in advance.  Copy(1 page)  of E-mail be provided to the applicant. There were over 3000 letters to be printed and dispatched by Speed Post.   So the printing was done on the computer in batches, starting from 27.1.2014.   Thereafter,  each batch of letters were forwarded to the Receipt  and Issue Section where manually the addresses of all the letters were required  to  be  written  on  the  Speed  Post  Booking Proforma.   This manual writing took considerable time.  Towards the last day  i.e. on 4.2.2014,    the employees in the Receipt & Issue Section conveyed their inability to manually complete writing of addresses and so requested permission to send the remaining letters by ordinary post as the same would not require manual writing of addresses and can be automatically stamped in the franking machine.  So these leftover letters of 4.2.2014 were sent by ordinary post after automatically franking them.  Thus, the applicant received the letter dispatched on 5.2.2014 by ordinary post.

(ii) In view of reply given at Point (i)       above, no further action has been       taken.

  1. R&I Section maintains record of list of addresses of letters sent by Speed Post and Ordinary Post alike. 

(iv) Normally, a minimum gap of one week is given between the date of dispatch and date of test/interview. 
(v) No.  Presence against Roll       No.302167   was not marked.

3

ITPO/PIC/Appeal/05/16/2014
Shri Banarasi Ram,
Delhi

Ref. No.ITPO/PIC/05/16/2014 dated 11.06.2014.
In the above quoted  ref. I have to state that several officers have been appointed on deputation CDA pattern but drawing perks on IDA pattern.  Only IDA pattern employees are entitled to receive the perks.  Therefore, appeal is filed for early disposal.

The First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by DPIO, ITPO and first Appeal of the applicant/appellant has observed that information furnished by DPIO, ITPO was corresponding to the queries of the appellant raised in RTI application and was justified.  Regarding query about perks, this being fresh point and views/opinion of the applicant, cannot be considered at the appellate stage.   Under the RTI Act, examining of appeal is to be confined only to the issues raised in the RTI Application.

4.

ITPO/PIC/Appeal/04/13/2014
Shri Kamal K. Agarwal,
New Delhi

I have filed a RTI dated 25.4.2014 to get the information under RTI Act. Copy attached with appeal.  It is stated that I have not received any information or intimation from PIO, ITPO after passing more than 2 months.

You are requested to kindly direct PIO to provide me the information sought.  In case of failure this time, a complaint with the relevant fact will be sent to CIC for further action as per the provisions of RTI Act.”

The First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by DPIO, ITPO and first Appeal of the applicant/appellant has observed that letter containing the requisite information was sent by DPIO, ITPO to the applicant by Speed Post on 16.5.2014 which was received back by ITPO undelivered on 20.05.2014.  Applicant could not be contacted, as he had not mentioned his contact number/email etc in his RTI application earlier.  Since the information was sent to the applicant vide DPIO, ITPO letter dated 15.05.2014 his query about non-receipt of information is not tenable. The FAA ruled that the applicant/appellant may be furnished copy of the letter dated 15.5.2014 on his email address indicated in his appeal.  The applicant may be advised to acknowledge receipt of  the email.

5.

ITPO/PIC/Appeal/08/02/2014
Shri Banarasi Ram,
Delhi

Appeal against vide letter  No.ITPO/PIC/08/02/2014 dated 14.08.2014.

In the above reference, I have to say the officer concerned did not provide the requisite document i.e. Agenda Item creation to the post of Addl. Secretary to the Chairman  & thereof BODs Minutes and as well as confirmation of Boards to creation to the post of Additional Secretary to Chairman against the appointment of Shri P.P. Yohannan in 1992.  Appellate Authority is requested to look into the matter for disposal of the appeal at the earliest.”

The First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by DPIO, ITPO and first Appeal of the applicant/appellant has observed that information furnished by DPIO, ITPO was corresponding to the queries of the appellant raised in RTI application and was justified. The FAA ruled that applicant/appellant may be further informed that the post of Additional Secretary to Chairman was not created in the erstwhile TFAI.  It was among those posts which were transferred to TFAI as part of the amalgamation of DECP, ICTFE & IITFO, Initially, Shri K.N Puri was additional Secretary to
Chairman from the inception of erstwhile TFAI.  After the retirement of Shri Puri, Shri P.P. Yohannan joined the organization as Additional Secretary to CMD on immediate absorption basis from DGCA. 

6.

ITPO/PIC/Appeal/07/07/2014
Shri Prakash Chander
New Delhi

Please refer to reply of P.I. Cell letter No.ITPO/PIC/07/07/2014 dated 6.8.2014 furnished against my RTI application seeking information about deputation of ITPO employees.  In this connection, I would like to submit that reply against Point No.3 & 4 of my application is not satisfactory as I had requested for providing copy of written policy/ guidelines / criteria for sending officers/ officials of ITPO on deputation. But the same has been replied as under:
“The norms of deputation of overseas events is as under:
Selection of Fair officer/Project team is based on performance, delivery, merit, suitability including financial and Vigilance clearance.  Seniority is also given due weightage though merit will remain the guiding factor.”
In this connection, I would like to reiterate that my question was about some written documents where the aforesaid norms are mentioned.  There must be some base to above answer whether that was notified/ circulated or not; that document should have been provided against my reply (either written in some noting portion or anywhere else). There was  a policy framed for deputing ITPO employees on foreign events at the time of the then CMD, Shri Yogesh Chandra.  Has that been discontinued or existing? Reference about the same policy should have been made and documents in support of my reply should have been furnished. 
Perhaps my queries were not answered for want of direct/ specific questions.  To facilitate the PIO my queries are as under:

  1. How the performance, delivering, merit suitability is calculated on 1 to 10 scale?
  2. What is the weightage of seniority in selection of Fair Officer/ Project Team?
  3. How merit is guiding factor in selection:
  4. Merit in a day to day working?
  5.  How merit is considered in foreign assignment without sending an official on foreign deputation?
  6. Whether selection of minor official states somewhere in writing that his/ her senior is unfit for foreign assignment.  If yes, please provide me the copy of such cases.
  7. I may be given the copy of notings where –

-these norms have been approved by CMD/BODs.
-Policy of former CMD, Shri Yogesh Chandra.  If no policy, written direction of CMD/ BODs for induction of practice sending lower staff.
-How and when this practice was discontinued?
(e)  I may be allowed to inspect the files where these norms/policy/ decisions for sending an official on foreign deputation have been taken by the management.
It is requested that the reply to my submission may please be given keeping in view the above.”

The First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by DPIO, ITPO and first Appeal of the applicant/appellant ruled that copy of the deputation policy approved by the competent authority being followed presently since 11.6.2010, may be provided to the applicant.    Other points raised in your appeal, being fresh points cannot be considered at the appellate stage. Under the RTI Act, examining of appeal is to be confined only to the issues raised in the RTI Application.

7.

ITPO/PIC/Appeal/11/03/2014
Shri Banarasi Ram

Appeal against vide letter  No.ITPO/PIC/11/03/2014 dated 1.12.2014.

In the above quoted reference, Appellate Authority is requested to please be directed to Divn. concerned for furnishing the documents in accordance to my application dated 07.11.2014 without concealing the facts.

NB: Competent authority is the Board of Directors for creation of the posts as done in the First Board of Directors meeting held and created the 7 posts on 31.12.1976.

 

Appeal against vide letter No.ITPO/PIC/Appeal/11/03/14  against II Entertainment Billls reimbursed to Shri Vikram Sehgal, GM(Security).

The Finance and Accounts Divn. furnished the entertainment bills – 1st Aug 2009 to 17.09.2014 is not in order as per application.

You are, therefore, requested to Division concern furnish the details in accordance to my application.

The First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by DPIO, ITPO and first Appeal of the applicant/appellant has observed that the available information has already been furnished to the appellant /applicant corresponding to the queries raised in the RTI Application. However, relevant papers, as sought by the appellant,  are not traceable, since this is an old case. 

Regarding point 2, the FAA ruled that applicant/appellant may be provided details (2 pages)of expenditure incurred on entertainment by Shri Vikram  Sehgal, GM(Security).

 

In this context, First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by DPIO, ITPO, 1st Appeal of the applicant/appellant and Rejoinder letter, has observed and ruled that the details (2 page) of expenditure on entertainment of Shri Vikram Sehgal, GM (Security) has already been furnished to the appellant/applicant, as per available records.  The information, as per format specified by Applicant, is not available; hence, cannot be provided. 

8.

ITPO/PIC/Appeal/11/01/2014
Shri S.K. Verma
New Delhi

“My wife filed a complaint against me and my family members in CAW Cell.  She has also file a case of maintenance against me.  In order to save me and my old aged parents, I need copies of those letter to fight the case in family court.
I being the husband of “Mukta Verma”, may kindly be provided a certified copy of all the letters written by her addressing hon’ble CMD of ITPO.

  1. To defend myself and my family members against baseless blames filed by her in her complaint in CAW Cell proceeding.
  2. To collect all important papers to assist my advocate to fight all baseless blames against me and my family members in family court.”

The First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by DPIO, ITPO and first Appeal of the applicant/appellant and considering the written submission of third party,  Mrs. Mukta Verma, wife of Shri S.K. Verma, that the information being her personal grievance and treated by third party as confidential,  ruled that the denial of information by DPIO, ITPO to the appellant  u/s 8(1)(j)  & 11 of the RTI Act, 2005,  is justified.

9.

ITPO/PIC/Appeal/11/04/2014
Shri Amit,
दिल्ली

निवेदन इस प्रकार है कि मैंने दिनांक 7.11.2014 को सूचना अधिकार नियम के तह्त कुछ जानकारी मांगी थी परन्तु आपके द्वारा दिये गये जवाब से मै संतुष्ट नही हूं 1  कृप्या मझे पूरी जानकारी दी जाये ! कि आपके द्वारा आयोजित  6 oct to 8 oct, 2014 को होने वाले INSPIRE FAIR मे खरीदे  गये समान का  टैडर किस तारीख को आयोजित किया गया व वह किस अखबार मे या ONLINE प्रदर्शित किया गया !  तथा यह एक  OPEN TENDER था जिसकी डेट किसी भी रूप से गोपनीय नही हो सकती है ! इसकी डेट बताने से विभाग को आने वाले  TENDERS  मे फाइनेंसियल फायदा होगा व TENDER  भी पार्दर्शिता सामने आयेगी!

The applicant has also submitted a Rejoinder dated 3.2.2014 received in ITPO on 6.2.2015 conveying as under:

निवेदन इस प्रकार है कि मैंने दिनाक 12.12.2014 को आपको एक पत्र लिखा था जिसका जवाब मुझे आपके द्वारा 16.1.2015 को दिया गया1  मै आपको बताना चाहुंगा कि मैंने आपको अपने पत्र मे क्रय किये गये समानों  (टी शर्ट/ कप/मग) के रेट (मुल्य) मांगे थे ना कि डेट. कृपया मुझे मेरे द्वारा मांगी गई सही जानकारी उपल्बध कराने की कृपा करें।

The First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by DPIO, ITPO and first Appeal of the applicant/appellant and observed that Appellant has now specified the points on which, the information provided to him, is incomplete, directed PIO to provide following information:

Appellant may be informed that  for the purpose of procurement like T-Shirt, cap & bag, mug etc. for Inspire Fair,  ITPO published its open tender in ITPO website, Central procurement website & ITPO’s empanelled news paper.   Then such tender cancelled due to some administrative issues.

On the second stage, a limited tender enquiry related to items such as T-shirts, caps & bags is floated in the ITPO website & in newspaper also.  Then our committee cancelled the second because items were not matched so far as per DST’s requirement.

The time was very short and there was no more time to invite tender/bids through proper mechanism like open tender or limited tender unless the suggested items, like mug, T-shirts, caps & bags wouldn’t procured before deadline.

  1. For the procurement of items, like T-shirts & caps, ITPO has invited quotations from three companies on dated 19.09.2014 as per ITPO DFPR.
  2. For the procurement of item, like bags, ITPO had invited three quotations, without call tender on dated 19.09.2014 as per ITPO DFPR clauses.
  3. For the procurement of items like mug, ITPO invited three quotations, without call of tender on dated 09.09.2014 as per ITPO DFPR clauses.
  4. On line of calling quotations, as per ITPO DFPR Rules, no need to float/hoist in on-line & news paper.
  5. This is not called an open tender; this is called “call of quotations, without floating tenders” (limited tender).
  6. Publication of 1st and second tender was published in Hindustan Times on dated 07/07/2014 and 08/09.2014.

इस संदर्भ में  आपको सूचित किया जा रहा है कि आई टी पी ओ के प्रथम अपीलीय प्राधिकारी ने आपके आर टी आई आवेदन पत्र, आई टी पी ओ के उप जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा दी गयी जानकारी, आवेदक द्वारा दी गयी पहली अपील तथा दिनांक 03.02.2015 के पत्र को ध्यान से पढ कर माना है कि  अपीलकर्ता को उनके आर टी आई आवेदन पत्र, में पूछे गये प्रश्नो का मदवार उत्तर दे दिया है तथा उसे उचित समझा गया है । यहां फिर से दोहराया गया है कि दरों के बारे में चाही गयी जानकारी निजी और वाणिज्यिक होने के कारण उसे सार्वजनिक करना तृतीय  पक्ष की प्रतियोगी हैसियत को नुकसान पहुंचा सकता है और इस कारण इसे आर टी आई अधिनियम 2005 की धारा 8(1)(घ) और 11 के अनुसार नहीं दिया जा सकता है। तीसरे पक्ष ने कहा हैउनके वाणिज्यिक विश्वास को  सार्वजनिक नहीं किया जाए ।

10.

ITPO/PIC/Appeal/11/10&13/ 2014
Shri Banarasi Ram
Delhi

Appeal against letter No.ITPO/PIC/11/10/2014 & ITPO/PIC 11/13/2014 dated 15.12.2014.

Above quoted reference letters dated 15.12.2014 yet to be decided.  Relevant issues are under the umbrella of Admn.  You are therefore, requested to please be decided urgently on top priority basis under the existing approved rules.

The First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by DPIO, ITPO and first Appeal of the applicant/appellant  ruled as under:

Regarding point no.1, applicant/appellant may be informed that his letter dated 10.11.2014 has already been replied vide our letter No.7-ITPO(1)/E-1)/2013 dated 05.1.2015.

Regarding point no.2.: Both issues raised by the Applicant in his application have already been dealt earlier and we may not consider the same for re-examination

11.

ITPO/PIC/Appeal/10/10/2014
Shri Ajay Kumar,
Delhi

Subject: Clarification of printer.
With reference to a letter sent under RTI Act to one of your officers and in reply requested to consult you regarding this.
A few years ago, say 4 to 5, one printing press (Gopson Printers Noida) was ordered to print the entry tickets of International Trade Fair of that particular year but the press even printed duplicate entry tickets of International Trade Fair.  As this story was covered by the newspaper claiming to have arrested the owner of that very printing press.
I want to go deeper into this matter and provide the actions taken against the press by you. Also, the details of this happening, for instance police report, if any, blacklisting of that press, etc.”

The First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by DPIO, ITPO and first Appeal of the applicant/appellant has directed PIO to provide following information/reply to the applicant:

The instance referred by the appellant pertains to the year 2004 i.e. about 10 years back. ITPO lodged a complaint with the Police as per allegations made.  However, the police after investigating did not find anything incriminating and the Hon’ble CMM, District Courts had sent the final report as cancelled.”

12.

ITPO/PIC/Appeal/11/11/2014
Shri Pawan Mittal,
Delhi

  1.    Vide application, Annexure A hereto, under Section 6 of RTI Act, 2005, the appellant had sought certain information. The said application was duly received by respondent vide entry No.ITPO/PIC/11/11/2014 dated 19.12.2014 along with postal order of Rs.10/- i.e. the requisite fee.
  2.    Vide letter dated 19.12.2014. Annexure B hereto., the respondent supplied the information to the appellant. However, the information furnished by the respondent is incomplete and does not contain transparency. It is further submitted that the appellant is not satisfied by the information furnished by the respondent. It is settled law that the information furnished under RTI Act, 2005 should be transparent.
  3.    That the respondent has violated the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. It is further submitted that the information sought by the appellant is urgent in nature.
  4.    That it is in the fitness of things and interest of justice that the respondent be directed to furnish information immediately and penalties as prescribed u/s 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 may be imposed on the respondent.

 

So it is prayed that the respondent may kindly be directed to furnish the requisite information immediately to the appellant. It is further prayed that the penalties as prescribed u/s 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 may also kindly be imposed on the respondent. Any other order(s) as may be deemed fit and appropriate may also kindly be passed.”
The appellant vide email dated 07.1.2015 further stated that:

The notice has not been served timely as expected in the interest of justice.  As a result of thereof, the applicant has not given the sufficient time to present his case. Applicant also indicated the points No. 6,7,10,12,13 & 15, on which the information supplied to him, is incomplete.  Appropriate order as deemed fit, may be passed on merits.

After having perused the RTI application, reply furnished by Alt. DPIO, ITPO and your Appeal, FAA has observed that you have not specified the points on which the information provided to you is incomplete.

To assess and resolve the issues raised in your Appeal, you are requested to please appear for personal hearing before Ms. V. Meera, General Manager (Admn.) and First Appellate Authority, India Trade Promotion Organisation, Room No. 116, First Floor, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi – 110 001 at 4.00 p.m. on 08.01.2015.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by DPIO, ITPO and first Appeal of the applicant/appellant and observed that Appellant has now specified the points on which, the information provided to him, is incomplete, directed PIO to provide following information:

                        Regarding  6 : The information has already been provided and justified.
Regarding 7: The available information has already been provided to the applicant. However, details, such as name and designation are not available.     Under the RTI Act, 2005, PIO is not supposed to compile the information.   Therefore, cannot be provided.
Regarding 10:  Cards were sent, suo motu,  as also on the basis of requirements indicated telephonically or in writing.  Requests were received from the Supreme Court/High Court/CIC and other Tribunals.  Besides, empanelled Advocates/ Sr. Advocates and other Judicial persons, etc.
Regarding  12: The issuing passes is a matter of discretion exercised on the basis of long term association with ITPO Standing, requirements/ and need based in the interest of the Organisation..  The complimentary passes were distributed by various officers /Divisions of ITPO, which is scattered in various Divisions of ITPO.  The records of individuals are, not available, as sought by you.
Regarding 13:  The information sought has already been provided to the applicant and   justified.
Regarding 15:  40,633 business tickets were sold.

13.

ITPO/PIC/Appeal/01/05/2015
Shri Surender Singh,
New Delhi

Ref. my RTI dated 15.1.2015 seeking information relating to overseas deputation of Shri Dinesh Mathur, etc. As per Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005, an appeal regarding the provided  information vide letter dated 9th February, 2015.  The following is submitted under appeal:

  1. As per point raised at serial no.1, copy of the noting has not been provided.
  2. As per point raised at serial no.2, copy of noting, approval, seniority list, nomination details duly approved by HODs has not been provided for the year 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015.
  3. As per the point raised at serial no.3, the information with regard to names of officials who were in the consideration zone, has not been provided.
  4. As per reply of the point at serial  no.4, the committee deliberates the merit of different employees and they propose the project team for the consideration of the competent authority”.  The documentary evidence showing deliberations of various employees by the Committee has not been provided. The same may  also please be provided.
  5. As per point serial no.5, copy of names of officials proposed for overseas deputation for the year 2014 and 2015 may please be provided.
  6. As per reply of the serial no.6, they agreed “there are no specific norms for deputation of Executive level”. If it is correct, please cancel the deputation of officials who are at the level of Executive and below. AND

Copy of comments of Smt. Sheela Bhide, Ex-CMD directed to nominate Fair Officers continuously for three years may please be provided.

  1. As per reply given at serial no.7, copy of the recommendations of all HODs may please be provided.

I also request to give me a few minutes for personal hearing.

After having perused the RTI Application, reply furnished by  DPIO, ITPO and your Appeal, FAA has directed PIO, ITPO that Appellant may be given personal hearing at an early date.

To assess and resolve the issues raised in your Appeal, you are requested to please appear for personal hearing before Ms. V. Meera, General Manager(Admn.) and First Appellate Authority, India Trade Promotion Organisation, Room No.116, First Floor,  Pragati Maidan, New Delhi – 110 001 at 3.00 p.m. on  19.03.2015.

The documents specified by you in the hearing before the FAA, ITPO on 19.03.2015, in this context, the requisite  following available documents, are enclosed:

  1. Photocopy (3 page) note dated 7.11.2012 regarding nomination of Fair Officer/ Team members for overseas fairs for FY 2013-14 containing list of  officials showing (√) who were to be considered for overseas fairs.
  2. Photocopy (1 page) of ED’s order No.Exh. PG.19(1)/2010-11 dated July 12, 2011 regarding nomination of team for FY 2011-12.
  3. Regarding nomination for 2015-16, team was approved by Competent Authority on the basis of recommendation of HOD, Committee.  Copy (2 page) of list of officers./officials recommended by GM(Admn.).
  4. List of officers/officials recommended by the Committee and approved by the competent authority for overseas events for FY 2015-16. (3 page)

 

14.

ITPO/PIC/Appeal/10/07/2015
Shri Nitish
Delhi

I had submitted an application vide my letter No.Nitish/ITPO/Ceiling /RTI/01/ dated 14th Oct. 2014, under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It has been replied through letter No.ITPO/PIC/10/07/2014 dated 13th Nov. 2014. The relevant portion of your reply is reproduced verbatim below:
“In this context, it has been conveyed by the Division concerned that no reply was received from CPWD with respect to letters mentioned in your RTI application.”
2. Wrong reply furnished - It is factually not correct that no reply was received from CPWD with respect to letters mentioned in my RTI application by ITPO. I enclose copy of CPWD letter No.23(11)/DB/CD-14/2010-11/941(Hindi) dated 25-2-2011 which quotes the reference of two letters of ITPO No.(a)177-ITPO/SMU-II/Misc./Engg.2010-11 dated 06.01.2011 and (b) 177-ITPO/Misc./Engg/2010 dated 27.1.2011.
In view of above, it is established that ITPO is furnishing wrong reply to RTI application. This is a matter of regret.
3.0 I bring to your kind notice some relevant provisions and guidelines relating to the RTI Act, 2005.
3.1 Time limit – It is need less to state that the disposal of request for information is dealt u/s 7 of the RTI Act. It provides that information shall be made available as expeditiously as possible and in any case within 30 days of the receipt of the request. The time period of 30 days for delivering information under the RTI Act would commence with effect from the date of receipt of application and valid application fee.
(4.0) Correct and full information:   Keeping in view of the contents of para 3.0 of this letter, it is hoped that the information of my RTI application Nitish/ITPO/Ceiling/RTI/01 dated 14th Oct, 2014 shall be furnished correctly without suppressing the information.

The First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by DPIO, ITPO and first Appeal of the applicant/appellant has ruledthat applicant may be informed again that no reply was received from CPWD with respect to the letters mentioned in his RTI application.  Hence, the information already provided by DPIO, ITPO to the appellant,  is justified.

 

15.

ITPO/PIC/Appeal/11/12/2015
Shri Krishan Kumar
Delhi

Not given any documents about the records and time or date”.

The First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by Alt. DPIO, ITPO and first Appeal of the applicant/appellant and taking into consideration the submission of third party,  Shri Bhoop Singh s/o late Shri Hoshiar Singh,  FAA has ruled that the applicant may be informed that the third party has made a submission in writing that information being his personal information and held as trust, should not be provided to Shri Krishan Kumar, the appellant.   Hence, the denial of information by Alt. DPIO, ITPO to the appellant  u/s 8(1)(e)  & 11 of the RTI Act, 2005,  is justified.

2898
18/03/2020