Central Information Commission
Arun vs Ut Of Puducherry on 22 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UTPON/C/2024/603030
Arun ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Puducherry Technological University,
East Coast Road, Pillaichavadi,
Puducherry - 605014 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.07.2025
Date of Decision : 21.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
(Total number of 27 complaints/second appeals of the
Complainant/Appellant are listed today for hearing before the Commission)
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 15.12.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 15.12.2023 seeking the following information:
"Chief Secretary-cum-Chief Vigilance officer directed The Dean, Puducherry Technological University to submit the report within 1 month vide his order dated.06.11.2023, in this regard seeking following information, Page 1 of 4
1. Kindly furnish the copy of the report furnished by the Dean to Chief Secretary-cum-Chief Vigilance officer as per the aforesaid order.
2. Name of the Dean is responsible to furnish report.
3.Name of the irresponsible dean not comply the aforesaid order. Provide reason as information u/s 4(1)(d) for not comply the aforesaid order by submit the factual report within 1 month to Chief Secretary-cum-Chief Vigilance.
4. Name and Designation of the PIO is replying this RTI request in accountability manner.
5. FAA replied the RTI request instead of PIO vide your office letter No. PTU/Estt.(NT)/E.8/RTI reply/2023/2062, dat4ed.13.12.2023, in this connection seeking following information, provide reason as information u/s 4(1)(d) for replied RTI request by FAA instead of PIO."
2. Having not received any response from CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through Video-Conference. Respondent: Ms. J. Kalaiselby, Assistant Registrar & PIO present through Video-Conference.
4. Written submissions of the Complainant are taken on record.
5. The Complainant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date reply/information has not been provided to him by the Respondent.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that vide their letters dated 06.01.2024, 21.01.2024 and 28.08.2024, they have asked the Complainant for inspection of records, but he did not turn up for the same.
7. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Complainant submitted that he had not received copy of letters from the Respondent.
Page 2 of 4Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Complainant is aggrieved that till date reply/information has not been provided to him by the Respondent.
9. During the hearing, the Respondent referred to some letters dated 06.01.2024, 21.01.2024 and 28.08.2024 and informed that they have asked the Complainant for inspection of records, but he did not turn up for the same. The Commission observes that except a copy of letter dated 28.08.2024, nothing was uploaded by the Respondent and that too is not related to the instant RTI application.
10. The Respondent, during the hearing, volunteered to again facilitate inspection of records to the Complainant in their office w.r.t the information sought in the RTI application.
11. During the hearing, the Commission advised the Respondent to upload their written submissions in the matter, but not they have not uploaded the same till date. It prima facie shows mala fide intent of the Respondent in obstructing the information. In view of this, the Respondent is directed to be cautious in future and ensure that reply/information should be provided to the RTI applicants within stipulated period as per the RTI Act.
12. The Respondent is advised to fulfil her commitment made during the hearing by facilitating inspection of records to the Complainant, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The Complaint 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 Page 3 of 4 Copy To:
The FAA, Puducherry Technological University, East Coast Road, Pillaichavadi, Puducherry - 605 014 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)