Central Information Commission
B Krishnamoorthy vs Ut Of Puducherry on 21 December, 2021
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/UTPON/A/2020/134748 -UM
Mr.B Krishnamoorthy
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Puducherry Town Planning Authority
Jahawar Nagar, Boomiyanpet,
Puducherry-605005
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.12.2021
Date of Decision : 21.12.2021
Date of RTI application 19.03.2020
CPIO's response 06.05.2020
Date of the First Appeal 08.06.2020
First Appellate Authority's response 16.07.2020
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 09.11.2020
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-
Page 1 of 3The CPIO vide letter dated 06.05.2020, furnished a reply to the Appellant, as under:-
"This related file has been in search at Office Document record section. Once the file is got information will be provided."
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 16.07.2020, directed the PIO-cum-Junior Town Planner of Puducherry Planning Authority to take strenuous effort to trace the file and furnish the reply to the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide the information.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Suchitra (Grand-daughter of the Appellant) present through AC, Respondent: Absent.
The Respondent remained absent during the hearing. In spite of its efforts, the Commission was not able to contact the Respondent.
Dr. Suchitra while reiterating the contents of the RTI Applications stated that the Appellant had sought information regarding copy of site clearance certificate along with the Layout sketch issued to Mrs. Santhanamar etc. She further stated that vide letter dated 06.05.2020 an improper reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfil his purpose. The Appellant alleged that incomplete and unsigned documents have been received from the Respondent public authority on 07.12.2021. The Appellant requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 07.12.2021 which is taken on record.
The Respondent was not present to contest the submissions of the Appellant.
Page 2 of 3DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission directs the current CPIO to put more efforts to trace the information and furnish a precise and an updated revised reply to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. The above mentioned direction must be followed strictly.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(UdayMahurkar) (उदयमाहूरकर) ू नाआयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवंसत्याद्वपतप्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 21.12.2021 Page 3 of 3