Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Arzoo Naqvi vs Indian Council For Cultural Relations on 21 September, 2022

                                 के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली,
                               ली New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ICCRL/A/2021/110947

Ms. Arzoo Naqvi                                                ...   अपीलकता /Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO                                                      ...   ितवादीगण /Respondent
Indian Council for Cultural Relations

Date of Hearing                         :   20.09.2022
Date of Decision                        :   21.09.2022
Chief Information Commissioner          :   Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on                :   30.10.2020
PIO replied on                          :   26.11.2020
First Appeal filed on                   :   19.12.2020
First Appellate Order on                :   20.01.2021
2ndAppeal/complaint received on         :   11.03.2021

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.10.2020 seeking information on the following:-

The CPIO/ Programme Director, Indian Council for Cultural Relations, vide letter dated 26.11.2020 replied as under:-

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.12.2020. The FAA/Joint Secretary, Indian Council for Cultural Relations, vide order dated 20.01.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the CPIO, ICCR vide letter dated 15.09.2022 wherein a point wise response to the contentions raised in the Second Appeal was provided.

The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation. The Respondent represented by Shri Malkit Chand, CPIO and Director and Shri Imamudddin, Computer Operator participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Malkit Chand reiterated the replies of the PIO/ FAA and his written submission and stated that the Appellant was seeking personal Page 2 of 3 information of a third party without justifying the larger public interest in the matter.

Decision:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.

With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई.

वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3