Central Information Commission
Sufiyan vs Branch Sectt. Chennai on 1 February, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/BRSCH/A/2019/639565
Sufiyan ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Branch Sectt. Chennai, RTI
Cell, H-416, WW Unit, 6th Street,
Bharathidasan Colony, K K Nagar,
Chennai - 600078, Tamilnadu. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21/12/2021
Date of Decision : 21/01/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16/01/2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 15/03/2019
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01/05/2019
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 16.01.2019 seeking the following information:
1. Registration of FIR against FIR 357/2018 dated 28-10-2018 12:30 Hours by Vaniyambadi Town Police Station (Tamil Nadu Police Department).
Vaniyambadi Town Police Station-Vellore District-Tamilnadu-INDIA. Pin Code 635751 It has been more than Eighty One (81) days. (1 a) Kindly Furnish action taken report on above FIR (1 b) Inform other action taken on the aforementioned complaints. (1 c) Kindly furnish the reason for delay in action.
2. Furnish / inform the complete and full address and contact details of the First Appellate Authority.
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.03.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, theappellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference. Respondent: Jaspal Singh Dhanju, Assistant Legal Advisor & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he has not received the desired information as sought for in the RTI Application till date.
The CPIO submitted that he recalls that a reply was provided in the instant matter but since he has received the intimation of hearing only a couple of hours prior to the hearing he is unable to refer to the relevant records and sought for time to make his written submissions.
The Commission allowed him time to send the written submissions and the case was reserved.2
Decision:
The Commission received the relevant records from the CPIO via email wherefrom it is evinced that the reply to the RTI Application under reference was provided on 21.01.2019 in the form of a transfer letter under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act addressed to the Home Department, Govt. of Tamilnadu for necessary action. Further, in response to the First Appeal, the intimation of the transfer of the RTI Application was duly provided to the Appellant on 20.03.2019.
Having observed as above and keeping in view that fact that the information sought for in the RTI Application clearly does not pertain to the Respondent public authority and the Appellant was expected to file the RTI Application with the 'concerned' public authority as per Section 6(1)(a) of the RTI Act, no action is warranted in the matter.
The CPIO is directed to resend a copy of the reply of 21.01.2019 & 20.03.2019 to the Appellant via email within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The Appellant is further advised to pursue the matter with the concerned State Government authorities.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 3