Central Information Commission
Mohit Arora vs Niper, Guwahati on 31 January, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायतसंख्या / Complaint No. CIC/NIPGU/C/2021/628129-UM
शितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NIPGU/A/2021/628128 -UM
Mr.Mohit Arora
....शिकायतकताा/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research
Guwahati - NIPER-G, SilaKatamur - Halugurisuk,
P.O.: Changsari, Dist: Kamrup, Assam. Pin: 781101
.... प्रशतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31.01.2022
Date of Decision : 31.01.2022
Date of RTI application 02.04.2021
CPIO's response 24.05.2021
Date of the First Appeal 03.05.2021
First Appellate Authority's response 18.05.2021
Complaint dated Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information, as under:-
Page 1 of 3Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any reply of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 18.05.2021 dispose off the First Appeal. The CPIO vide letter dated 24.05.2021, furnished a reply to the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant / Appellant: Present through AC Respondent: Absent The Complainant/Appellant while re iterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that, partial information has been furnished to him. Aggrieved by the irregularities of the responses furnished by the Respondent authority, he said that he had sought information regarding the notesheet containing the criteria used for the selection of candidates but incomplete information Page 2 of 3 has been furnished to him. The Respondent remained absent during the hearing. In spite of several efforts made by the Commission he could not be connected.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant and on the perusal of record, the Commission observes that the Complainant wanted the information and hence had no objection in his complaint being treated as Second appeal. Therefore the Commission directs the CPIO to reexamine the case and furnish a suitable revised reply to the Complainant/Appellant on both the points in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. The Respondent may redact the names and personal details of the third parties.
The Complaint/Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(UdayMahurkar) (उदयमाहूरकर)
(Information Commissioner) (सच ु )
ू नाआयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अशिप्रमाशणतएवंसत्याशपतप्रशत)
(R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598
शदनांक / Date: 31.01.2022
Page 3 of 3