Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Patitapaban Mohanty vs Swami Vivekanand National Institute Of ... on 30 May, 2022

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                      के न्द्रीयसच
                                                 ू नाआयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                                    बाबागगं नाथमागग,मुननरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                            नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीयअपीलसख्ं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/SVNRT/A/2021/615761 -UM



Mr. Patitapaban Mohanty

                                                                       ....अपीलकताा/Appellant

                                         VERSUS
                                           बनाम

CPIO,
Swami Vivekanand National Institute of
Rehabilitation Training and Research,
Olatpur, Bairoi, Cuttack 754010



                                                                   ....प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing     :             27.05.2022
Date of Decision    :             30.05.2022



Date of RTI application                                                05.03.2021
CPIO's response                                                        31.03.2021
Date of the First Appeal                                               31.03.2021
First Appellate Authority's response                                   07.04.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                   Nil



                                         ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-

The CPIO vide letter dated 31.03.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 07.04.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant, as under:-

Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: The appellant was not present despite notice. Respondent: The respondent Dr. Pavitra Kumar Sahoo, Deputy Director attended the hearing.

The Appellant was not present despite notice. The Respondent present during the hearing submitted that at the time of the RTI the selection process was not complete but now since the process is completed the said information will be provided to the appellant.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the respondent and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission directs the Page 2 of 3 Respondent to furnish correct and complete information to the Appellant, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.

(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सच ू ना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 30.05.2022 Page 3 of 3