Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Msamrutha M George vs Spices Board on 5 February, 2016

                           CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                            Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
                               Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
                                          Website: cic.gov.in

                                                                          File No. CIC/KY/A/2015/000996
Appellant              :       Mrs. Amrutha M. George
                               W/o. Jose Antony Chaekiath
                               Chackiath House, Koonammavu P.O
                               Erankulam District-683518


Public Authority       :       The CPIO
                               Spices Board, (M/o. Commerce & Industry),
                               Sugandha Bhavan, N. H. By-Pass, Palarivattom P.O., Cochin-682025


Date of Hearing        :       05.02.2016
Date of Decision       :       05.02.2016

    Presence:
       Appellant       :       Shri Jose Antony Chackiath, Authorized by the Appellant
       CPIO            :       Shri Gaurav Dwivedi, Dy. Director & CPIO

    FACTS:

I. Vide RTI application dated 13.02.2015, the appellant sought information on sole issue.

II. CPIO, vide its response dated 13.03.2015 & 30.06.2015, has provided the information to the appellant.

III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 11.04.2015, as desired information not provided.

IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide his order dated 09.05.2015, directed the PIO to provide the required information to the appellant. V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 30.09.2015, are contained in the Memorandum of Second Appeal.

HEARING Appellant as well as respondent appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.

DECISION It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 13.02.2015, sought information from the respondents on sole issue. Respondents, vide their response dated 13.03.2015, allegedly not provided the required information to the appellant. Being Page 1 of 3 aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 11.04.2015 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 09.05.2015, directed the PIO to provide the required information to the appellant. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.

2. During hearing of the appeal, it is to be seen here that the respondents, vide their letter dated 14.05.2015 (9 in nos.), have asked the Third Parties to give their comments for providing the required information to the appellant. It is worth to mention here that out of nine Third Parties only Shri Biswanath Mazumder, one of the Third Party, vide his letter dated 26.05.2015, has submitted his No Objection in providing the required information to the appellant.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that incompliance of FAA's order, the CPIO, vide his subsequent response dated 30.06.2015, provided the required information to the appellant pertaining to Shri Biswanath Mazumder.

4. The Commission heard the submissions made by appellant as well as respondents at length.

The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 13.02.2015, respondent's response dated 13.03.2015 & 30.06.2015, FAA's order dated 09.05.2015, other material made available on record including appellant's written submissions dated 02.02.2016 and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.

5. In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commission is of the considered view that the respondents have provided the required information to the appellant in terms of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005. In view of this, the Commission feels that the appellant's second appeal becomes redundant in this regard. Thus, the appellant's second appeal deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, it is dismissed.

The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Krishan Avtar Talwar) Deputy Registrar The CPIO Spices Board, (M/o. Commerce & Industry), Sugandha Bhavan, N. H. By-Pass, Palarivattom P.O., Cochin-682025 Mrs. Amrutha M. George Page 2 of 3 W/o. Jose Antony Chaekiath Chackiath House, Koonammavu P.O Erankulam District-683518 Page 3 of 3