RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT -ITPO

 

Details of Appeal/Decision of First Appellate Authority for the year April, 2015 - January, 2016 under RTI Act

Sl.
No

ID No. and Name of the applicant

Ground of Appeal

Decision of First Appellate Authority/remarks

1.

ITPO/RTI/Appeal/03/09/2015
Shri Y.K. Sharma, Delhi

This is with reference to letter No. ITPO/RTI/03/09/2015 dated 22.4.2015 received in response to my letter dated 22.3.2015. A request was made vide my above letter (copy enclosed) to provide specific reply but no information was provided to the Point No.3, 4, & 5, (details given below) of my letter:

The First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by DPIO, ITPO and points raised in the first Appeal of the applicant/appellant ruled that following point wise information/reply may be provided to the applicant/appellant:

  • Reasons for not recovering the amount from the Team Leader Mr. Arun Kumar, Ex-Sr. Manager (Elect.).
  • As has already been explained earlier that there was a practice to intimate personal recoveries only against the employees. Thus, the Admn. Divn. had obtained NOC from Salary Section and Bill Checking Section (Accounts Section) only of Finance Divn. who deals with the personal matter of the employees.
  • Copies of the note sheets where approval of competent authority was obtained by the Finance Division before giving NOC to Mr. Arun Kumar, without making recoveries.

 

  • Since no outstanding dues related to corporate recoveries were shown against the employees at that time, question of seeking approval without making recoveries does not arise.
  • If not approved by the competent authority, action taken by the Management against the official who issued NOC to Mr. Arun Kumar without seeking approval
  • explained at point No.2 above, responsibility of the concerned official who issued the NOC could not have been fixed.

2.

ITPO/RTI/Appeal/08/03/2015

Shri Banarasi Ram

Delhi

Appeal against letter No.ITPO/RTI/08/03/2015 dated 08.09.2015.

"In the above quoted ref. it is stated that Public Information officer has not provided the certified copy of vide serial no.2 to 5 and 6.

Appellate Authority is hereby requested to look into the matter for furnishing the said documents immediately. It is clarified that serial no.5 is not a secret document."

The First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by DPIO, ITPO and first Appeal of the applicant/appellant observed and ruled that the information provided by DPIO, ITPO in respect of point No.(ii) to (iv) was corresponding to the queries raised by the applicant in his RTI application, as the applicant against each point, had sought specifically date of application/ interview/ test and date of filing of complaint, etc. Hence, the information provided by DPIO, ITPO was justified.

In respect of Point No.(v) and (vi), the Appellate authority also ruled that the appellant/ applicant may be provided following further information/ documents by applying clause of severability u/s 10 of the RTI Act, 2005:

Point No.(v) Photocopies (22 pages) of Affidavit signed by Shri P.R. Sood, Sr. Manager, on behalf of ITPO filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench at Nagpur.

Point No.(vi): Photocopies (4 pages) of certified order/Judgement dated 16.02.2015 received by ITPO on 9.3.2015. As these are Court documents, these are provided for information purpose only. These should not be used for any other purposes.

3.

ITPO/RTI/Appeal/08/05/2015

Shri Banarasi Ram,

Delhi

GM(Admn.) is corrupt – case should have been put up for necessary action – without considering fact case have been filed.

First Appellate Authority is requested to look into the matter for appropriate necessary action & accordingly provide the certified copy against the initiation of the both cases."

In this context, First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by DPIO, ITPO, 1st Appeal of the applicant/appellant, observed as under:

"That initiation of action is not covered under the ambit of "Information" as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. The applicant can only seek information, which already exists in material form with the Public Authority. For initiation of action, the applicant may approach the appropriate authority. Under the RTI Act, examining of appeal is to be confined only to the issues raised in the RTI Application. Hence, the information furnished by DPIO, ITPO, is justified."

4.

ITPO/RTI/Appeal/06/09/2015

Shri Ashok Gupta

Delhi

That the applicant is aggrieved by the PIO as not providing the complete information as asked from the P.I.O is evident from the fact that PIO is only providing list pertaining to 103 Firms/ Companies/ Entity were participated in AAHAR 2015 whereas the Fair Guide published by the ITPO provide the list of 351 Firms / Companies/Entity.

Also the applicant asked for the information of AAHAR 2013, 2014 and 2015, but the PIO gave the details of only 2015."

In this context, First Appellate Authority, ITPO after having perused the RTI Application, information furnished by DPIO, ITPO, 1st Appeal of the applicant/appellant, observed and ruled that:

Photocopies of available list of participants for Aahar 2013, 2014 and 2015 may be provided to the applicant/appellant. The list contains details of 566 companies for Aahar 2013, 658 companies for Aahar 2014, and 731 companies for Aahar 2015. The list/details include the members of the constituents/associates. The brochure was printed before the finalization of participation. However, Appellant may be informed that the compiled information for 2013, 2014 in respect of payment and date of allotment is not available.

In addition to the information provided to the applicant earlier, Appellant may be informed that the space was also allotted to the Associations like ARCHI, HOTREMAI, FIFI, AIFPA, FHSAI, Govt. Departments and foreign participants.

Applicant may be further informed regarding point 3 of his RTI application that the "first come first served basis" was on the basis of receipt of the booking amount.

5.

ITPO/RTI/Appeal/09/11/2015

Shri Gopal Prasad, Delhi

"I have some objections regarding the reply of the ITPO which are following:

1) According to S.No.2(d) Dy.PIO replied that the final allotment was made to two co-associates based on actual requirement as the initial allotment was on tentative basis. Thus technically no surrender can be accounted for.

That reply is not true and actual. When an Association cannot achieve the target and cannot sell the area given by ITPO then this case is called surrender. But it seems that reply of Dy. PIO is totally wrong and the protection of ARCHI.

2) According to Sl.No. 3(a) & (b) Dy. PIO replied that the details of registration and PAN number of Co-associates is personal and confidential information of third party, disclosure of which would cause invasion of privacy of an individual, hence cannot be provided u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.

In this regard this reply is also not suitable and it is the violation of RTI Act. When a party (NGO, Association, Firm) dealing with a Govt. Organisation (ITPO) then anyone has the right to know that the genuinely/identification of the firm which is based on PAN No. and Regn. No. provided by Govt. Org. (Income Tax Department & Registrar of firms). I do not want any internal information, so I request to you that please order to PIO to give the right and genuine reply for transparency in appropriate timing.

"The information which cannot be denied to the parliament or a state legislature shall not be denied to any person." I expect your positive consideration on this regard."

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 applicant/appellant may be provided following point wise information:

(1) The details of area allotted to each co-Associate on payment basis has been already mentioned i.e. FHSAI 228 sq.mtr. and HOTREMAI 27 sq.mtr.. As stated earlier, final allotment is only made on receipt of payment.

(2) PAN No. of FHSAI is AAAF3147L and TAN No.DELF05399C and PAN No. of FIFI is AABCF6602M and TAN No.DELF04922B; PAN No. of APEDA is AAAJA1150H and TAN No. DELA16332B. The details of PAN Number etc of other co-Associates cannot be provided, as the other co-Associates i.e. HOTREMAI. ARCHI and AIFPA have made an oral/ written submission not to provide their PAN Number etc. to anybody as they consider these details as their personal information, disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual. Therefore, the PAN Numbers of these co-Associates cannot be provided as per provisions u/s 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act, 2005.

2898
18/03/2020