Central Information Commission
J Neethi Murugan vs Ministry Of Defence on 10 March, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/DODEF/A/2020/124902
In the matter of
J Neethi Murugan
... Appellant
VS
CPIO
Ministry of Defence,
Sainik School Amaravathinagar
Udumalpet Taluk,
Tiruppur - 642 102 Tamil Nadu
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 10/03/2020 CPIO replied on : 21/05/2020 First appeal filed on : 26/06/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal Filed on : 20/08/2020 Date of Hearing : 09/03/2022 Date of Decision : 09/03/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Present alongwith his representative Respondent: Balraj, Officiating Vice Principal & CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide details of action taken against A.R. Gokulakrishnan by the administration of Sainik School, Amaravati Nagar based on his complaints.
2. Provide number of Board meetings of the Sainik School, Amaravati, in which A.R. Gokulakrishnan has participated since he has been entrusted with the responsibility of President of Parent Teacher Association of Sainik School, Amaravati Nagar.1
3. Board meetings of Sainik School are very sensitive due to the participation of officers of Armed Forces and State Government officials to discuss on the sensitive issues of Sainik School. Provide as to how A.R. Gokulakrishnan with criminal antecedents has been allowed to take part in such sensitive meetings.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was present at the VC Centre, however, he was not able to submit anything as he was not well conversant with the English language. His representative was however, informed that the case will be decided on the basis of merits. In his second appeal memo he had stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant 21.05.2020.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that vide the letter dated 21.05.2020, the appellant was asked to inspect the records. On a query to the CPIO as to whether the appellant inspected the records, he submitted that he did not come for inspection. The Commission holds that even though the appellant did not come for inspection, however, on points no/ 1 & 2, the desired information could have been easily provided to the appellant and on the rest of the points a categorical reply could have been given as observed that some of the points are even not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act and some are related to a third party. The Commission therefore deems it appropriate that a point-wise reply be given to the appellant and on points no. 1& 2, the desired information as available should be given.2
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to consider the RTI application afresh and provide a point-wise reply as explained above within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3