Central Information Commission
Mrk Balasubramanian vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 18 July, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi110066
F. No.CIC/SH/A/2015/001262YA
CIC/SH/A/2015/001475YA
Date of Hearing : 18.07.2016
Date of Decision : 18.07.2016
Appellant/Complainant : Shri K Balasubramanian, Chennai
Respondent : CPIO, Department of Agriculture,
Karaikal/Puducherry
Through:
Shri Rammurthy, FAA
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Since common parties are involved in the above mentioned appeals, they are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Case No. RTI filed no. CPIO reply First appeal FAA order 2nd appeal filed
filed on
1262 31.01.2015 27.02.2015 14.03.2015 No order 28.04.2015
passed
1475 31.01.2015 27.02.2015 17.03.2015 No order 08.06.2015
passed
CIC/SH/A/2015/001262YA
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 31.01.2015, the appellant sought information as follows:
"Copy of special report or Mahazar prepared by Fertilizer Inspector Mrs. Jayanthi while taking Potassium Chloride samples from Karaikal Chlorates on 8.4.2009, for analysis detailing procedure followed in taking samples as prescribed under Fertilizer Control Order."
CPIO vide letter dated 27.02.2015 instructed to pay amount for sought information. The appellant preferred first appeal but no order was passed. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present and heard. The appellant states that potassium chloride samples were procured by the fertilizer inspector on 08.04.2009 at M/s Karaikal Chlorates and through the present RTI, he had sought a copy of special report/ Mahazar prepared by the Fertilizer inspector on the spot. He states that the CPIO furnished analysis & compliance report prepared by the fertilizer inspector. He states that he requires the Mahazar (sample inventory) as per the procedure prescribed for procuring samples under the Fertilizer Control Order. The CPIO states that all material available on record was furnished to the appellant. He further states that no Mahazar report was prepared and the sole report prepared in the course of inspection was furnished to the appellant.
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission directs the CPIO to certify to the appellant that no Mahazar report, as sought by him was prepared. The order shall be complied within 2 weeks of receipt.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
CIC/SH/A/2015/001475YA At the outset, the appellant states that an identical appeal bearing no. CIC/YA/A/2015/001240 emanating from the same RTI application dated 31.01.2015 has been decided by this bench vide order dated 01.06.2016.
In view of the foregoing, the present appeal is barred by res judicata and disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Copy to: