Central Information Commission
M Pavadai Raja vs Ut Of Puducherry on 22 March, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UTPON/A/2023/103230
M Pavadai Raja .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
THE REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE
SUB REGISTRAR, SARAM,
PUDUCHERRY. - 605013 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20-03-2024
Date of Decision : 22-03-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23-08-2022
CPIO replied on : 30-09-2022
First appeal filed on : 17-10-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07-12-2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23-08-2022 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 3
"1. In Puducherry Registration Department how many complaints received regarding cancellation of forgery/duplicate Document. Details required.
2. How many such complaints disposed in the past one year after enquiry by the Puducherry Registration Department. Details required.
3. Details of how many forgery documents cancelled in the Sub Registration Office regarding the complaint. Details required with document numbers.
4. Regarding Forgery documents, how many complaints for forgery document forward by the Puducherry Registration Office to the Police department and details of the FIR filed by the Police Department against such accused."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 30-09-2022 stating as under:
"Point 1, 2 and 3:
The information requested contains 50 pages, Copies of the same may be obtained from this office on payment of necessary fees.
Point 4:
No such record is available in this office; hence it is unable to furnish the information as requested."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17-10-2022. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present Respondent: Ms. Gomala, PIO appeared through video conference.
The appellant inter alia submitted that he has not received the desired information till the date of hearing. He visited the respondent's office for Page 2 of 3 payment but neither payment was taken from him, nor information was provided to him.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise reply wherein additional fee was demanded for providing the information/documents to the appellant. However, they stated that the appellant had not paid necessary fee as per the RTI Rules, therefore, information sought could not be provided.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the respondent asked the appellant to deposit additional fee for providing the documents to the appellant as per the RTI Rules. However, the same was not paid by the appellant till the date of hearing, therefore, documents sought could not be provided. The Commission finds no infirmity in the reply given by the respondent. However, in the interest of justice, the appellant is advised to pay additional fee as per RTI Rules and then the respondent shall provide the desired documents, within one week's time from the date of receipt of fee from the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy Date 22-03-2024 (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date Page 3 of 3