Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

M Selvamanikandan vs Ut Of Puducherry on 23 September, 2021

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                 के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/UTPON/C/2020/106259-UM

Mr. M Selvamanikandan
                                                           .... निकायतकताग /Complainant

                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम
CPIO,
Karaikal Polytechnic College
Varichikudy, Karaikal 609609



CPIO,
MNG PC, Puducherry - 605004



CPIO
PIPMATE,
Puducherry. - 605004
                                                            .... प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing    :             07.09.2021
Date of Decision   :             09.09.2021

Date of RTI application                                            09.09.2019
CPIO's response                                                    14.10.2019
Date of the First Appeal                                           21.10.2019
First Appellate Authority's response                               04.11.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Complaint by the Commission            05.02.2020

                                      ORDER

FACTS The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points, as under:-

The CPIO, Karaikal Polytechnic College vide letter dated 14.10.2019 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal. FAA vide order dated 22.11.2019 in response to the order of the FAA, Karaikal Polytechnic College furnished a reply to the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Complainant: The Complainant attended the hearing. Respondent: The respondent Shri Charles Devraj, CPIO attended the hearing.

The Respondent present during the hearing submitted that suitable reply in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. The respondent stated that as per the RTI Act, the department had sent a notice to the staff members in question to give their consent under Section 11 of the Act for disclosing their personal Information to the Appellant but they had denied and hence the information could not be furnished to the Complainant. Moreover, the respondent Page 2 of 3 informed that there is no larger public interest involved in disclosing such information to the Complainant.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, and also after perusing the documents available on record, the Commission observes that Section 11 of the RTI Act, had been properly followed by the respondent in denying the personal information of the concerned staff members to the appellant and hence no further intervention is required in the mater by the Commission.

The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.

(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित एवं सत्यापित प्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर. के. राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 09.09.2021 Page 3 of 3