Central Information Commission
Nageswara Rao Koduru vs Ministry Of Information & Broadcasting on 23 July, 2018
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx Hkou
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION BHAWAN
ckck xaxukFk ekxZ] eqfujdk
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
ubZ fnYyh-110067
Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
Email - [email protected]
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
File No. : CIC/MOIAB/A/2017/149090/SD
Date of Hearing: 23/07/2018
Date of Decision:23/07/2018
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Koduru Nageswara Rao
Respondent : CPIO,
Ministry of Information And Broadcasting,
"A" Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
RTI application filed on : 15/02/2017
CPIO replied on : 17/03/2017
First appeal filed on : 10/04/2017
First Appellate Authority : 26/04/2017
order
Second Appeal dated : 05/07/2017
Information sought:
The Appellant sought the copy of the notification No. 809/7/1992-F(C) dated 28.02.1992 of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India vide which he was nominated as Advisory Panel Member, CBFC.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
1
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Not present.
Appellant stated that the document sought is merely of two pages and can be made available to him.
Decision Commission observes from the perusal of facts on record that CPIO has adequately intimated the Appellant that the copy of notification is not available. Further, as per FAA order matter was referred to CPIO, CBFC, Hyderabad in order to search their records.
It may be noted that another Appeal of the Appellant seeking the same information from CPIO, CBFC, Hyderabad has been also listed for hearing before this bench on the same day. In the said matter, CPIO, CBFC has informed the Appellant that as per record retention schedule circulated by Deputy Director Archives, New Delhi, files pertaining to appointment of advisory panel members are to be kept for 10 years and as Appellant's request pertains to a period earlier than 10 years, the said notification could not be traced.
In view of the foregoing, no separate action is warranted against CPIO, CBFC in this matter.
In light of the CPIO's reply, Commission is not in a position to order any relief in the matter.
Commission takes grave exception to the absence of CPIO during hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. Accordingly, CPIO is directed to provide explanation for non appearance before the Commission within 15 days of receipt of this order.2
File No. : CIC/MOIAB/A/2017/149090/SD The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 3