Central Information Commission
R Buvanesvari vs Ut Of Puducherry on 13 April, 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/UTPON/A/2019/100016-UM
Mrs. R Buvanesvari
....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनतम
CPIO,
Directorate of Higher and Technical Education,
Lawspet, Puducherry- 605008
प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.04.2021
Date of Decision : 13.04.2021
Date of RTI application 12.06.2018
CPIO's response 04.07.2018
Date of the First Appeal 16.07.2018
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 01.01.2019
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 03 points as under:-
Page 1 of 31. Certified copy of complaint dated 18.09.2009 and 20.04.2010 forwarded from Puducherry Women Commission, Puducherry vide No. 21/1312/PWC/10-11 dated 17.08.2010 to Directorate of Higher and Technical Education, Pipmate, Pudcherry.
2. Certified copy of follow up Action Taken report with regard to the above complaint.
3. Certified copy of file noting along with all correspondence with regard to the above complaint.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 04.07.2018, on point No. 1 informed the Appellant that there is no record of receiving a letter from the Puducherry Women's Commission on the date indicated by the Applicant in the registers of the Directorate and for points 2 and 3, stated that the questions doesn't arise. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide information.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mrs. R Buvanesvari, telephonic conference; Respondent: Ms. R. Kalavathi, Supdt.-cum-CPIO and Mr. Sunderajan FAA through AC;
The Appellant reiterated the earlier decision of the Commission and stated that no information was provided on points 02 and 03 of the RTI application by the CPIO. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that the decision of the Commission has been duly complied with by the CPIO. The Appellant contested the above averments of the Respondent and consistently maintained that satisfactory replies were not provided to her as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent however, agreed to re-examine the RTI application once again and to furnish an updated status on points 02 and 03 of the application within 15 days.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant which is taken on record wherein she submitted that no information was received on points 02 and 03 of the RTI application even after the direction of the Commission.Page 2 of 3
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to furnish an updated status / ATR along with the file notings as sought on points 02 and 03 of the RTI application to the Appellant in the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
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: 13.04.2021 Page 3 of 3