Central Information Commission
K Udayachandran vs Directorate Of Higher And Technical ... on 26 May, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DHTED/A/2022/135691-UM
Mr.K Udayachandran
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
1. Directorate Of Higher & Technical Education,
Pipmate Office Complex,
Lawspet, Puducherry-605008.
2. Dr.Ambedkar Govt. Law College,
Mathur Road, Kalapet, Puducherry-605014
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.05.2023
Date of Decision : 26.05.2023
Date of RTI application 06.06.2022
CPIO's response 07.06.2022
Date of the First Appeal 07.07.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 11.07.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.07.2022
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on points, as under:-
Page 1 of 3The CPIO, Directorate of Higher & Technical Education, vide letter dated 07.06.2022transferred the request to Dr.Ambedkar Govt. Law College.Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 11.07.2022stated as:-
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. K Udayachandran attended the hearing, Respondent: Mr. R. Munnuswami, Superintended and Dr. Ruppamlal Howlader, Asst. Prof. Law, attended the hearing.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought inspection of Dr. Ambedkar Govt. College from 31.10.2018 to till date etc. He submitted that an Page 2 of 3 improper reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfill his purpose. While deposing in the hearing, he stated that the Department wilfully and deliberately misled and hid information and requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
Dr. Ruppamlal Howlader, while defending their case inter alia submitted that he has not received the RTI application in their office and therefore no reply to the RTI application could be provided. However, he received the RTI application with the Commissions notice and a suitable response would be furnished.
DECISION:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by both the parties and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO because the RTI application has not been received by the respondent. However, Dr. Ruppamlal Howlader, has received the RTI application now. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide a suitable reply 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) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] द्वदनांक / Date: 26.05.2023 Page 3 of 3