Central Information Commission
Ashok Kumar Shukla vs Dg All India Radio on 5 December, 2016
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001386
Appellant : Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Lucknow.
Public Authority : Prasar Bharati, Doordarshan Kendra,
Lucknow.
Date of Hearing : 11th November, 2016
Date of Decision : 01st December, 2016.
Present
Appellant : Not present.
Respondent : Shri K.K. Gupta, Director (Engg.), Shri
Sushil Chand Sekhar, UDC through VC.
RTI application : 11.10.2015
CPIO's reply : 02.11.2015
First Appeal : 23.12.2015
FAA's order : 03.02.2016
Second appeal : 27.05.2016
Information Commissioner : Manjula Prasher
ORDER
1. The appellant, Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, submitted RTI application before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Prasar Bharati, Doordarshan Kendra, Lucknow, seeking action taken on the letter dated 18.12.2013 sent by the Secretary, Administrative Reforms, Govt. of UP to the Director, DDK, Lucknow; sought details of programmes telecasted by Doordarshan for RTI Act, 2005 and Uttar Pradesh Janhit Guarantee Act, 2011 from 1.1.2014; list of such programmes to be telecasted during the next financial CIC/MP/A/2016/001386 1 year; details of persons involved for telecasting programmes under the RTI Act & Uttar Pradesh Janhit Guarantee Act, 2011; the names of CPIOs, FAA etc. through seven points.
2. The CPIO provided information on points 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 to the appellant and intimated that the information sought at point 4 did not fall under the definition of 'information' as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant approached the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 03.02.2016 provided an opportunity to the appellant for inspection of the relevant records.
3. Thereafter dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO had provided incomplete information and the FAA had not adjudicated on the appeal filed before him. The appellant requested the Commission for award of compensation.
4 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him. The respondents stated that the FAA vide order dated 03.02.2016 adjudicated on the appellant's appeal and provided an opportunity to the appellant for inspection of the relevant records, if he so wished, but the appellant did not avail of this opportunity. The appellant was not present to indicate any shortcoming in the information provided by the respondent authority.
CIC/MP/A/2016/001386 2
5. The Commission holds that the CPIO had appropriately responded to the appellant. Moreover, the FAA had provided an opportunity to the appellant for inspection of the relevant records, but he had not availed of this opportunity. The Commission upholds the decision of the respondent authority. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, The Central Public Information Officer, 293/409, Old Hyderganj, Prasar Bharti, Doordarshan Kendra, Lucknow. Lucknow (U.P).
The First Appellate Authority, Directorate General of Doordarshan, Doordarshan Bhawan, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-110001.CIC/MP/A/2016/001386 3