Central Information Commission
Latchmy vs Ut Of Puducherry on 20 November, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UTPON/A/2023/639761
Latchmy .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Directorate of Higher and Technical Education,
Pipmate Campus, Lawspet,
Puducuherry - 605008 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.11.2024
Date of Decision : 19.11.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.04.2023
PIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 31.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 20.06.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08.07.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 30.04.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
"The following information pertaining to Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Insitute of Engineering and Technology, Karaikal are to be furnished under RTI Act, 2005
1. Certified true copy of file noting along with all enclosures regarding the closure of three courses in PKIET, Karaikal for the academic year 2023-2024."
Having not received any response from the PIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 20.06.2023, held as under:
"This is related to Government of Puducherry policy decision, further concerned note file is not available in this office."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Mr. R Mounissamy, Superintendent/PIO along with Mr. Aramudral, Principal-cum-FAA present through video-conference.
A written submission dated 06.11.2024 has been filed by the appellant, which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
"Brief facts leading to the appeal -
I filed RTI online application on 30.04.2023 with CPIO, Directorate of Higher and Technical Education, U.T Puducherry to provide "Certified true copy of file noting along with all enclosures regarding the closure of three courses in PKIET, Karaikal for the academic year 2023-2024" but no reply though mandated period of 30 days over under Section 7(1) and 7(3).
I filed online first appeal on 31.05.2023 to the First Appellate Authority, Directorate of Higher and Technical Education, U.T Puducherry to direct CPIO to provide requisite information within a time bound. The First Appellate Authority, PKIET College, Karikal, U.T Puducherry had passed an order dated 20.06.2023 vide. No. PKIET/Admin./RTI/2022-23 Page 2 of 6 stating that "This is related to Government of Puducherry Policy decision; further concerned note file is not available in this office". Not satisfied with reply furnished by FAA, PKIET, hence I lodged this second appeal dated: 08.07.2023 before Central Information Commission, New Delhi.
Subsequent to that, FAA, PKIET had provided the relevant information which was available in the office of the establishment section of PKIET after delaying for period of 1 month since no Public information Officer has been appointed in PKIET College, Karikal, U.T Puducherry to provide reply within the time bound to my RTI application. Prayer for Relief Hence, I pray before his Excellency that Commission is requested to Issue strict warning and show cause to CPIO, Directorate of Higher and Technical Education, U.T Puducherry under Section 20(1) for no reply though mandated period of 30 days over under Section 7(1) and 7(3). Commission is requested to direct the Higher and Technical Education Department, Puducherry to appoint designated Public information Officer in PKIET College, Karikal, U.T Puducherry under Right to Information Act, 2005.
Issue such other order or orders as may be deemed appropriate in the interest of justice in my absence due to health inconvenience to attend the hearing".
A written submission dated 05.11.2024 filed by the FAA is taken on record, contents of the same are reproduced below:
"With the reference to the above cited, it is informed that the detail sought by Mrs. B. Latchmy residing at D 150, Buvancare Street. Olandai Keera Palayam, Mudaliarpet, U.T. of Puduchery 605 004, in respect of RTI application dated 30-04-2023 was received certified copy of file noting regarding the closure of three courses in PKIET, Karaikal on 31-08- 2023. The appellant was also satisfied with the document issued by the office of the Principal, PKIET. Hence, I request you sir, do the needful to dispose this appeal. The following documents are enclosed herewith for your kind reference.Page 3 of 6
1. Reply furnished for the detail sought by Tmt. B. Latchmy, dated 20.06.2023.
2. Certified copy of the note file consists of 13 pages sent to the appellant address through courier, dated 14.08.2023 and return to the undersigned office by mentioning "Door Closed".
3. Intimation letter to the Registrar, Central Information Commission, New Delhi, dt. 17.08.2023
4. Copy of the note file received in person on 31.08.2023."
Respondent, while inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission stated that relevant information has already been furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 31.08.2023. He further stated that the delay caused in supplying information was unintentional and may be condoned in the interest of justice.
Post hearing, the respondent filed an additional written submission dated 13.11.2024 detailing the reasons for delay in reply, with the following explanation:
" 2.The following are the reasons for delaying in submission of RTI information to the Complainant:
a) Tmt S. Prema, Director-cum-PIO, PKIET, Karaikal has been suspended from the service since 11.10.2022 by the Competent Authority, Govt of Puducherry and no one has been appointed as Public Information Officer, PKIET, Karaikal during that period. (enclosed-I)
b) The undersigned has been appointed as Principal, PKIET- cum-FAA, PKIET since from 11.07.2023. (enclosed-II)
c) The above mentioned RTI information was brought to the knowledge of under signed in the middle of the June 2023 (at the time, the undersigned was look after the duties of Principal without the order from the Govt.) The reply was given to the complainant on 20.06.2023 and subsequently, the true copy of note file (information) sought by Tmt.
Latchmy was issued to her at free of cost.
Page 4 of 63. Therefore, it requested that the appeal before Hon'ble Information Commissioner may please be closed."
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, noted that as far as RTI application is concerned the appellant is in receipt of information which is admitted by him in his averred written submission and the same has been taken on record.
Further, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant to take action against the respondent for delayed response on account of absence of mala fide intent on their part. In this attention of the appellant is invited towards a judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
In view of the above, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in this matter.
Page 5 of 6The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Institute of Engineering and Technology Nedungadu, Karaikal - 609603 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)