Central Information Commission
Unnikrishnan Pk vs Ministry Of Defence on 17 August, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2021/126270
In the matter of:
Unnikrishnan PK
... Appellant
VS
1. Central Public Information Officer
Sainik Schools Society, Ministry of Defence,
R.N 101, D-1, Wing, Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110011.
2. Central Public Information Officer,
Sainik School, Kazhakootam,
Sainik School PO, Thiruvananthapuram - 695585.
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 09/10/2020 CPIO replied on : 25/11/2020 First appeal filed on : 02/12/2020 First Appellate Authority order : 27/01/2021 Second Appeal filed on : 07/07/2021 Date of Hearing : 17/08/2022 Date of Decision : 17/08/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Lt Col. Shelley K Das, CPIO, present over VC. Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide copies of the communication(s) received from Hon'ble Defence Minister, Shri Rajnath Singh with regard to suicide of Cadt. Ashwin Krishna PU and complaint against the school authorities.1
2. Provide copies of the notings by various officials and decision of the competent authority with respect to communication referred to above, from the Hon'ble Defence Minister.
3. Provide a copy of the investigation report or feedback obtained with respect to the issues raised in the memorandum and communication / representation referred to above, from Hon'ble Defence Minister submitted through Hon'ble MP (Lok Sabha) Ms Ramya Haridas.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that till date no final reply has been given to him despite the fact that his RTI application and his first appeal both were traced by the public authority.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 25.11.2020.
Observations:
The Commission observes that the second appeal has been filed after the lapse of the laid down timeline as per Sec 19(3) of the RTI Act. The appellant has also failed to seek condonation of the delay nor gave any valid and acceptable reason explaining the delay that could have been considered as a sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing his second appeal after the stipulated time mentioned under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. In the absence of any valid reason/sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing the appeal in time, it is appropriate to consider the case as time barred under Sec 19(3) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
In view of the above, the appeal is considered as time barred under Sec 19(3) of the RTI Act and accordingly dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआय! ु त) 2 Authenticated true copy (अ$भ&मा'णत स)या*पत& त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3