Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONClub Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/002676/SG/18751Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/002676/SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. P.M Ravindran,2/18 Aathira, Sivapuri, Kalpathy-678003
Respondent : Mr. S. Padmanabha, CPIO & Dy. Secretary Central Information Commission2nd Floor, ‘B’ Wing,August Kranti Bhawan,Bhikaji Cama Place,New Delhi-110066
RTI application filed on : 23/07/2011PIO replied : 26/08/2011First appeal filed on : 30/08/2011First Appellate Authority order : 03/10/2011Second Appeal received on : 22/11/2011
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)1. In reference to the following 2nd Appeals:
1) rti/rlys- passr/inf- 2nd Appeal-280510 dated 28/05/10 –
2) rti/sspo pkd-2nd Appeal-280510 dated 28/05/10
3) rti/sbi pkd-2nd Appeal- 070710-penfix dated 7/07/2010
4) rti/sbi pkd-2nd Appeal- 070710-curchest dated 7/7/2010
Forwarded through CAPIO, O/o the SSPO, palakkad and forwarded by speed post no EL 664026435IN on 07/07/10
1.1) Received vide dy. No. 37981 on 28.5.2010 and registered as case CIC/AD/A/20 10/001046.1.2) The appeal dated 28.5.2009 was attached to the appeal bearing Dy. No. 37981, so only after this RTI, one could notice that there is an appeal hearing dated 28th May, 2001 instead of 28th May, 201.0. The same is being forwarded to the registry of IC (LS) for necessary action. This letter does not bear any dy. No.1.3 & 1.4) As per Receipt Management System no such letters have been received in the C.R. Section.
2. In the context of the above Appeal provide the following information:
1) The date of receipt and serial number of the entry in the register maintained for the purpose
2) With respect to the acknowledgement, the letter number and date, the date on which sent and the serial number of the entry in the register maintained for the purpose and the mode of sending- whether by
2.1) Dy. no. 37981 on 28.5.20 10 and registered as caseCIC/AD/A/2010/001046.
2.2) No acknowledgement is sent.
2.3) Hearing Notice dated 30 August and hearing having postponed for 29.9.2010 issued, copy enclosed.
Page 1 of 3
ordinary post, speed post, registered post with or without acknowledgement due or courier etc
3) With respect to the notice for hearing, the letter number and date, the date on which sent and the serial number of the entry in the register maintained for the purpose and the mode of sending whether by ordinary post, speed post, registered post with or without acknowledgement due or courier etc
4) The dates and mode- in person, audio conference, video conference etc-of hearing and the names, designations and location of the participants
5) With respect to the orders, the order number and date, the date on, which sent and the serial number of the entry in the register maintained for the purpose and the mode of sending- whether by ordinary post, speed post, registered post with or without acknowledgement due or courier etc
6) Also, with respect to the orders, the url of the order if available on the commission’s website.
7) In the case of appeals where hearings have not been conducted so far, provide the copies of file notings and the statements of the PIO/FAA, if any, received.
2.4) Through Video Conference from Chennai, Respondents Shri Nageswar Rao, APJO, Mrs. Bose, CPIO and Mr.Jani Ram (Reservation Deptt.) represented the Public Aithorty.
2.5) The Order No. CIC/AD/A/2010/001046 datedSeptember, 29 2010 was dispatched from the Commission on 15th October, 2010.
2.6) The order is available on the CIC website:rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/ CIC_AD_A_20 1 0_001046M_43703.pdf
2.7) Not applicable:
3. Attention invited to the following emails sent by the Appellant:
1) from Ravindran P M –[email protected] to [email protected]@nic.in , [email protected] Subject- Non compliance of the order in CIC/AT/A/2010/000683 dated SUN, Apr17,2011 at 7:56 AM.
2) from Ravindran P M – [email protected] to [email protected] CC- [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] date Sunday, Dec19, 2010 at8:50 AM.Subject Frwd- Case no. CIC/AT/A/2010/00683: Hearing on 22/11/2010 at 12 noon through video conferencing.
3.1 & 3.2) There is no specific notings in the case file in respect of the e-mails sent by you as mentioned in the RTI application.
Page 2 of 3
4. In the context of the above e mails, please provide the copies of the file notings on action taken and the information about the present status.
-
5. A blank P0 (No,) issued by HPO, Palakkad-678001, for Rs 10/- (Rs Ten only) is enclosed herewith towards the prescribed fees.
-
6. Please use the file reference and date in all communication on this matter.
-
Grounds for the First Appeal:Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):The First Appellate Authority observed that the information sought in para 1, the appellant had referred to 4 second appeals filed by him in the Commission, for which information was sought in paras 2.1 to 2.7. Since, the reply has not gone para-wise and hence not clear, Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, nodal CPIO is directed to send fresh information with respect to 4 second appeal filed by the appellant against Department of Railways, Posts and State Bank of India within 20 working days of the receipt of this order. The Deputy Registrars dealing with these departments are also directed to make available information to the nodal CPIO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO. Further the Appellant also asked for penalty to be imposed on the PIO and compensation of Rs 5000 under section 19(8) (b). The Appellant also stated that the information directed by the FAA to be provided within 20 days of receipt of order had not been furnished.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:The following were present:Appellant: Mr. P.M Ravindran on video conference from NIC-Palakkadu Studio; Respondent: Mr. S. Padmanabha, CPIO & Dy. Secretary alongwith deemed PIOs;
The PIO has provided information as per available records. The Appellant has certain serious grievances with the working of the Commission for this he would have to make representation to the Chief Information Commissioner and it is not in the PIO’s jurisdiction to resolve these.
Decision:The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records has been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner04 May 2012
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG)
Page 3 of 3
