Central Information Commission
Sudhansu Sekhar Das vs National Council For Teacher Education on 7 October, 2022
CIC/NCTED/A/2021/623664
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/NCTED/A/2021/623664
In the matter of:
Sudhansu Sekhar Das ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
National Council for Teacher
Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing II,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi-110002
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 15.03.2021
CPIO replied on : Not on Record
First Appeal filed on : 15.04.2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record
Second Appeal received on : 12.06.2021
Date of Hearing : 23.09.2022
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent (Shri. Arun Kumar Pradhan, Network Engineer-NIC
Kandhamal informed the bench that the Appellant did not come)
Respondent: Shri. Anil Kumar, PIO & Section Officer, SRC-National
Council for Teacher Education, participate in the hearing, in person
Page 1 of 7
CIC/NCTED/A/2021/623664
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 15.03.2021 seeking information as under:
"The institution under Southern Regional committee (NCTE) in Andhra Pradesh state i.e. School of Distance Education, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh has given recognition in the year 2017-18 to conduct B.ED- ODL course .
If it is recognition there please supply the recognition certificate and order of Distance Education, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam."
Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.04.2021, which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority as per available records.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of non- receipt of information from the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice.
The Respondent submitted that a categorical reply along with the requisite enclosure has already been furnished to the Appellant vide reply dated 24.06.2021 and the contents of the same are as under:Page 2 of 7
CIC/NCTED/A/2021/623664 The Commission queried the Respondent regarding delay in furnishing of the above of reply, to which the Respondent submitted that the instant RTI Application was earlier dealt by the then CPIO Ms. R. Ragi and he joined 3- 4 months back, so he is unaware of the reason behind such delay.
The Commission further queried the Respondent regarding the status of First Appeal to which the Respondent submitted that a reply with respect to First Appeal has been furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 21.10.2021 and the contents of the same are as under:
The Respondent added that First Appellate passed an order on 25.10.2021 and the contents of the same are as under:Page 3 of 7
CIC/NCTED/A/2021/623664 The Commission interjected that the above First Appellate Order does not have a mention of reply dated 24.06.2021, to which the Respondent could not provide any cogent explanation, however stated that the all the above replies have been furnished to Appellant through speed post. The Commission further interjected that it cannot be ascertained whether the Appellant is in receipt of the same, to which the Respondent submitted that they will resend all the replies to the Appellant.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri. Anil Kumar, PIO & Section Officer, SRC-National Council for Teacher Education, vide letter dated 23.09.2022, wherein the Commission has been apprised a under:Page 4 of 7
CIC/NCTED/A/2021/623664 Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent has furnished the requisite information to the Appellant but there has been a delay in attending the instant RTI Application. Therefore, the Commission strictly admonishes the conduct of the then CPIO, for not attending the instant RTI Application within the stipulated time-frame as mandated in the RTI Act. The Commission sternly cautions the Respondent public authority that in future, they shall ensure that replies to the RTI Applications shall be Page 5 of 7 CIC/NCTED/A/2021/623664 provided within the mandated time-frame as specified in the provisions of the RTI Act.
Since the Commission cannot ascertain whether the Appellant is in receipt of the replies and First Appellate Order, it deems it fit to direct the Respondent to resend all previous replies along with the written submission dated 23.09.2022 within a weeks' time from the date of receipt of this order.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 06.10.2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 6 of 7 CIC/NCTED/A/2021/623664 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) National Council for Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing II, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002
2. The Central Public Information Officer National Council for Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing II, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002
3. Mr. Sudhansu Sekhar Das Page 7 of 7