Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The Commission received a petition dated 19 January 2010 (Diary No.: 6449-03/02/2010) from Shri G. P. Singh concerning an RTI application submitted on 8 September 2009 to the CPIO, HUDCO, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. The CPIO replied to the RTI request by letter No. HUDCO/RTI/CPIO/2009/769 dated 23 September 2009. The appellant filed a first appeal on 12 October 2009 before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), which, according to the papers, had not been decided by the FAA at the time of the Commission's consideration.

To avoid duplicative proceedings under section 19 and section 18 of the Right to Information Act, the Commission remitted the matter to the First Appellate Authority with specific directions on how the FAA should proceed. The order was signed by Smt. Deepak Sandhu, Information Commissioner, and an authenticated copy was issued by T. K. Mohapatra, US & Dy. Registrar. Copies of the Commission's order were directed to Shri G. P. Singh and the First Appellate Authority at HUDCO.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission's analysis is procedural and brief. It proceeded on the following factual and administrative findings and reasoning, taken verbatim from the submitted papers:

1. It noted the chronology: RTI application filed on 08/09/2009, CPIO response dated 23/09/2009, and first appeal filed on 12/10/2009 before the FAA.
2. Because the FAA had not (at the time) decided the first appeal, the Commission sought to prevent multiplicity of proceedings under section 19 (second appeals) and section 18 (complaints) of the RTI Act by remitting the matter back to the FAA for resolution.
3. The Commission gave specific, time-bound directions to the FAA to ensure expedition and to create a clear administrative record: if the first appeal remained undecided, the FAA was to pass a speaking order within two weeks of receiving the Commission's order; if the FAA had already decided the first appeal, a copy of that order was to be furnished to the appellant within one week of receipt of the Commission's order.
4. The FAA was further directed to endorse a copy of the First Appellate Order to the Commission, indicating the case number and any reason for delay in providing information.
5. Finally, the Commission made clear that if the appellant remains aggrieved after the FAA's action, the appellant may approach the Commission in a second appeal under section 19(3), and may also file a complaint under section 18 within the prescribed time limits.

The opinion does not elaborate on substantive legal interpretation beyond these procedural directions; it primarily instructs the FAA to act so as to streamline remedy and avoid parallel proceedings.

Holding and Implications

REMITTED TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITH DIRECTIONS.

Direct consequences for the parties as stated in the opinion:

• If the first appeal dated 12/10/2009 is pending, the FAA must dispose of it by passing a speaking order within two weeks of receipt of the Commission's order.
• If the FAA has already disposed of the first appeal, the FAA must furnish a copy of its order to the appellant within one week of receipt of the Commission's order.
• The FAA must endorse a copy of the First Appellate Order to the Commission, indicating the case number and any reason for delay in providing information.
• If the appellant remains aggrieved by the FAA's decision, the appellant is at liberty to pursue a second appeal under section 19(3) of the RTI Act and a complaint under section 18, within prescribed timelines.

The opinion does not announce or rely on any novel legal principle and therefore does not appear to create precedent beyond the immediate administrative direction. The order concludes the Commission's involvement at this stage, subject to any future second appeal or complaint by the appellant.

Administrative and Contact Details Noted in the Opinion

The order is signed by Smt. Deepak Sandhu, Information Commissioner (DS), and an authenticated true copy is attested by T. K. Mohapatra, US & Dy. Registrar. Contact telephone number and email (as listed in the opinion) were provided: Tele. No. 011-26105027, tk.mohapatra@nic.in. Copies of the Commission's order were directed to Shri G. P. Singh (address in Mayur Vihar-I, Delhi) and to the First Appellate Authority at Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd., HUDCO Bhawan, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.