Central Information Commission
L R Sudheendra Rao vs Archaeological Survey Of India on 5 March, 2020
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
Decision no.: CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/166454/03070
File no.: CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/166454
In the matter of:
L R Sudheendra Rao
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Archaeological Survey of India
Hampi Mini Circle, Kamalapuram,
Bellary - 583 221
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 25/06/2018 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 03/09/2018 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 31/10/2018 Date of Hearing : 04/03/2020 Date of Decision : 04/03/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Dr. H.R Desai, Assistant Superintendent and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. No. of permanent MTS and temporary status staff available in Hampi Mini- Circle.
2. No. of labours engaged for maintenance of monuments- monument wise in Hampi Mini- Circle.
3. Wages paid to each labour month-wise.1
4. Name and address of the labour, Aadhar No. and Bank A/c No. in which the wages are deposited.
5. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal Both CPIO and FAA did not provide any reply.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant has not availed of the opportunity to plead his case despite duly served notice on 21.02.2020 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED033294885IN.
The CPIO submitted that an apt reply was provided on 29.10.2018. On a query by the Commission he submitted that the delay in providing the reply occurred as there was no CPIO nominated by the Head Office Delhi till 04.10.2018. He further submitted that 132 pages of information were sent to the appellant. Furthermore, he added that earlier the documents were sent through ordinary dak but on 25.02.2020 the same was sent through speed post and acknowledgment of the same was received by them. Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record it was noted that the reply earlier sent was on 29.10.2018 and the appeal was filed on 31.10.2018. It is also important to mention here that the same documents were also resent to the appellant via speed post.
It appears that the reply must have been received by the appellant and therefore he did not appear for the hearing.
Decision:
In view of the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter. The Appellant has not availed of the opportunity to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions. The Commission accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) 2 File no.: CIC/ALSOI/A/2018/166454 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