Central Information Commission
L R Sudheendra Rao vs Archaeological Survey Of India on 31 May, 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
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/ALSOI/A/2019/121380 -UM
Mr.L R Sudheendra Rao
....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनतम
CPIO,
Dy. Superintending Archaeologist,
Archaeological Survey of India, Hampi Mini Circel,
Kamalpuram, Dist Bellary,- 583221,
Karnataka
प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.05.2021
Date of Decision : 31.05.2021
Date of RTI application 05.11.2018
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of the First Appeal 04.02.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 21.06.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 08.05.2019
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points, as under:-
Page 1 of 31. List of casual labours prepared by Bangalore Circle who were awarded with Temporary status containing
(a) Name and Address.
(b) Total service rendered by each labour at the time of awarding temporary status- year- wise.
(c) Educational qualification.
(d) Date of birth.
(e) Name/s and designation/s of the officials who prepared the list.
2. Copies of the certificates of Date of birth / proof of age of each labour furnished at the time of awarding temporary status.
3. Whether the Temporary Status was awarded with a single status (in a single category or with different category like heavy mazdoor, jawalis, etc.).
4. If so, name with category awarded may be furnished.
5. Copies of the orders awarding Temporary Status of these labours.
Dissatisfied due to non - receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 21.06.2019 upheld the reply of the PIO dated 16.05.2019 and offered an inspection of the documents to the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide information, free of cost.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Absent.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, the hearing of the matter was scheduled through audio conference after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Both the Appellant as well as Respondent remained absent during the hearing. The matter is now being decided upon the documents available on record.Page 2 of 3
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and also after perusing the documents available on record, the Commission directs the Respondent in case the Appellant had not availed the inspection as offered by the FAA vide its order dated 21.06.2019, the same may be offered to the Appellant again to enable him inspect the documents/ records as available with them within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. The inspection should be conducted at a mutually convenient date and time within 30 days from the date of Communication and the same should be intimated to the Commission.
Further, if the Appellant fails to avail the inspection within the stipulated time frame the Respondent are not bound to take up the matter any further. No further intervention by the Commission is required in the matter after this direction.
The Appeal 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: 31.05.2021 Page 3 of 3