Central Information Commission
Mohit Arora vs Niper, Guwahati on 31 January, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NIPGU/A/2021/628195-UM+
Complaint No. CIC/NIPGU/C/2021/628196-UM
Mr.Mohit Arora
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research
Guwahati - NIPER-G, SilaKatamur - Halugurisuk,
P.O.: Changsari, Dist: Kamrup, Assam. Pin: 781101
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31.01.2022
Date of Decision : 31.01.2022
Date of RTI application 03.04.2021
CPIO's response 24.05.2021
Date of the First Appeal 03.05.2021
First Appellate Authority's response 19.05.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-
Page 1 of 3Dissatisfied due unsatisfactory reply of the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 19.05.2021 dispose off the First Appeal. The CPIO vide letter dated 24.05.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant/Complainant. Thereafter, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Mohit Arora participated through AC, Respondent: Absent Page 2 of 3 The Respondent remained absent during the hearing. Despite its continuous efforts, the Commission was not able to contact the Respondent.
The Appellant/Complainant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Applications stated that he had sought copy of the attendance sheet of the candidates who appeared for the post of NT-13 - Storekeeper held on 06.02.2021 and related issues (i.e 4, 5, 8, 9,10 & 13 of the RTI application). He further stated that vide letter date 24.05.2021 an improper reply was furnished by the Respondent on point nos. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 & 13 of the RTI application which could not fulfil his purpose. He alleged that the some of the candidates had passed the exam without appearing in the said exam due to which he had filed the RTI application in larger public interest and to increase transparency in the selection process. Furthermore, when queried he stated that the information sought may be furnished removing third party information. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
The Respondent was not present to contest the submissions of the Appellant/Complainant.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant/Complainant and on perusal of record and further the Appellant/Complainant's request that his complaint may be treated as second appeal, the Commission observes that the information sought on point no.4&5 of the RTI Application, purely pertains to 3rd party information and therefore cannot be provided. Further, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply on point nos. 1, 8, 9, 10 & 13 of the RTI application has not been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to furnish a correct and detailed revised reply to the Appellant/Complainant on the said points, redacting personal details of third party as defined under section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act within a period of 21 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Complaint/Appeal stands disposed accordingly (Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनाक ं / Date: 31.01.2022 Page 3 of 3