Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Salinder Singh v. Pio, Public Works Department Ut Of J & K

Salinder Singh v. Pio, Public Works Department Ut Of J & K

(Central Information Commission)

Second Appeal No. CIC/PWDJK/A/2022/137946 | 29-01-2024

Information sought and background of the case:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated nil seeking list of encroachers on road leading from village Halka (Marh) to Hari Singh Gharat (which in the process of widening) in a specific Performa.

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 23.02.2021 transferred the RTI Application to:-

“1. Superintending Engineer, PWD (R&B) Circle Jammu for information.

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Information Officer, PWD (R&B) Division III, under section 6, sub section 3 of RTI Act, 2005 for providing information directly to the applicant within prescribed time limit as per the provisions of the act. Any delay would entail penalty as per provisions of the Act.

3. Sh. Salinder Singh S/O sh. Jaswant Singh R/o vill Chak Jaffer, Tehsil Marh, District Jammu for information (9419763281).”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil which was not adjudicated by FAA.

4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

5. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant : Not present

Respondent: None present during the hearing

6. Neither party was present during hearing, despite service of hearing notice in advance

Decision:

7. Upon perusal of records of the case, it is noted that the Respondents have not sent any response at all so far to the Appellant. Moreover, the Respondent has not even appeared to make submissions about the case at hand. Absence of the Respondent during the hearing coupled with not providing the any response to the Appellant’s RTI queries have thus resulted in these proceedings being vitiated and violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence, the Respondent is hereby directed to submit an explanation for wilful violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, within four weeks of receipt of this order, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated, in terms of law. The Respondent shall also send an accurate and appropriate response to the RTI application, within three weeks of receipt of this order and submit a report before the Commission within a week thereafter.

8. The appeal is disposed off on the above terms.

Advocate List
Bench
  • Heeralal Samariya (Chief Information Commissioner)
Eq Citations
  • LQ
  • LQ/CIC/2024/14
Head Note

RTI Act, 2005 — Information sought — List of encroachers on road from Halka (Marh) to Hari Singh Gharat — CPIO transferred the application to various authorities and did not furnish any information to the appellant — FAA also did not adjudicate the first appeal — Held: Non-submission of response by CPIO and non-appearance of Respondent during the hearing vitiated the proceedings and were in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act — CPIO directed to submit explanation for wilful violation of the provisions of the RTI Act within 4 weeks, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated — CPIO also directed to send appropriate response to the RTI application within 3 weeks and submit a report before the Commission within a week thereafter