Case Law Details
Aabid Hussain Vs. CPIO (Central Information Commission)
Appellant stated that he has received the information after the issue of notice of hearing to the CPIO. He requested for award of compensation in view of the gross detriment suffered by him for the inordinate delay of over 2 years in providing the information to him. He stated in line with his grounds of Second Appeal that he had required this information for filing in Civil Court for furtherance of his case and the delay has made the purpose of seeking information redundant. He strongly urged that he feels harassed for want of information all this while.
CPIO submitted that the then CPIO & Office Superintendent, A.K Pathak was responsible for replying on the RTI Application, who has since retired in January, 2016. She further submitted that she has assumed office only in February, 2016 and has provided information to the Appellant on 13.10.2017.
Decision
Commission takes grave exception to the flagrant violation of the RTI Act by the CPIOs of Cantonment Board, Jabalpur and the ignorance of the present CPIO about the pending RTI Applications from the tenure of her predecessor. It is incumbent upon the present CPIO to deal with all such pending RTI Applications and not wait for the Commission to issue notice of hearing to provide reply to RTI Applicants.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
