Central Information Commission
Mrsuryakant B Tenali vs Csir Hqrs.,New Delhi on 6 November, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/YA/A/2014/003048/KY
Appellant : Shri Suryakant B. Tengali
924/8, NIO Colony, Near Kadmba Depot
Porvorim, Goa-403521
Public Authority : The CPIO
CSIR-National Institute of Oceanography,
Dona Paula, Goa-403004
Date of Hearing : 06.11.2015
Date of Decision : 06.11.2015
Presence:
Appellant : Absent
CPIO : Absent
FACTS:
I. Vide RTI application dated 11.07.2014, the appellant sought information on 3 issues.
II. CPIO, vide its response dated 11.08.2014, has provided the information to the appellant.
III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 08.09.2014, as desired information not provided.
IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide his order dated 30.09.2014, upheld the views of CPIO.
V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 05.11.2014, are contained in the Memorandum of Second Appeal.
HEARING Appellant as well as respondent opted to be absent despite of our due notice to them.
DECISION It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 11.07.2014, sought information from the respondents on three issues. Respondents, vide their response dated 11.08.2014, provided the required information to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 08.09.2014 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 30.09.2014, disposed of the FA by upholding the views of CPIO.
....2 -2-
2. The Commission perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 11.07.2014, respondent's response dated 11.08.2014, FAA's order dated 30.09.2014 and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
3. In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commission is of the considered view that the respondents have provided the required information to the appellant in terms of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005. In view of this, the Commission feels that the appellant's second appeal becomes redundant in this regard. Thus, the appellant's second appeal deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, it is dismissed.
The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Krishan Avtar Talwar) Deputy Registrar The CPIO CSIR-National Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula, Goa-403004 Shri Suryakant B. Tengali 924/8, NIO Colony, Near Kadmba Depot Porvorim, Goa-403521