This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint submitted that on 20-01-2014 he wrote a letter addressing to Shri Anup Kumar Chattopadhyay, Chief Traffic and Transportation Engineer (C.T. & T.E.), Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering Directorate, Transport Department, Government of West Bengal, and said letter was about the alleged erroneous method by which complainant was absented on many days as per the Attendance Register of the said office though complainant duly attended the said office on those days but recorded as absent against complainant’s name in the said Attendance Register.

          On 31-01-2014 in the name of the complainant RTI application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was submitted in which complainant requested the concerned SPIO to provide him the detail of  official record and specific information completely disclosing the daily actions or steps taken till 30-01-2014 in respect of his letter mentioned in above para and said RTI Application was duly accompanied along with a court fee of Rs.10/- as application fee and said RTI Application was duly received by the Office of SPIO on 31-01-2014.

          But on 14-12-2014 SPIO gave a letter in response to the letter of the complainant but said information was not specifically provided on the contrary complainant was directed to inform instead of providing him the information specified by the complainant in his RTI Application which is the denial of the information as sought for.

          Further complainant was not supplied with such information as sought for as per RTI application for which the complainant as consumer did not get proper service and due to negligent and deficient manner of service this complaint is filed.

          On the other hand OP by filing written statement submitted that as per RTI application of Debabrata Basu necessary reply was provided vide No.186/1E-2/2006 dated 20-02-2014 to the complainant which contains detail information as sought in the said RTI Application and that was provided within the RTI Application made by the complainant Debabrata Basu.  So, there was no negligence or deficiency on the part of the OP and further the present complaint is vexatious and for which the said application should be dismissed as same is not maintainable.

Decision with Reasons

After hearing the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the materials, copy of the letter dated 14-02-2014 it is found that on 21-02-2014 complainant received a letter issued in the name Debabrata Basu, the complainant by the State Public Information Officer and that letter was received by the Debabrata Basu on 21-02-2014 and on that date along with that letter copy of information against application dated 31-01-2014 information was properly served and it was also received  by the complainant wherefrom it is found that SPIO has supplied the entire materials so apparently there was no fault on the part of the OPs and there was no negligence and deficiency on the part of the OPs.

          But particularly the conduct of the complainant as employee it is found that the allegation of the complainant is completely baseless and without any foundation and truth is that if any staff attends daily invariably his attendance must be noted by him and if he does not attend in that case against his name the column shall be vacant and concerned officer shall have to put mark ‘A’ (absent).  Anyhow, we have gathered that this complainant filed the several cases against the officers of Transport Department and other departments and no doubt the very conduct of the complainant as employee is not reasonable, social and moral.  Might be for that reason to create pressure upon the entire administration as a delinquent staff he has been creating trouble and no doubt it is gathered that he has already been become a Forum bird and only to harass the concerned officer he has filed this case against the authority and nothing more and for which there is no merit in this case and thus compliant fails.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost.