Central Information Commission
Mr.P Kannan vs Ut Of Andaman And Nicobar on 25 November, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002366/15936
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002366
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. P. Kannan,
S/o. Late Pulla Goundar,
M/s Kembu Studio, Pongy Kyaung,
Port Blair.
Respondent : Mr. Yogesh Pratap
PIO & ADM Office of The Dy. Commissioner Andaman & Nicobar Administration South Administration, Head Office, South Andaman, Port Blair, Andaman & Nicobar Island RTI application filed on : 28/10/2010 PIO replied on 11/11/2010 First Appeal filed on : 15/12/2010 First Appellate Authority order of : 14/01/2011 Second Appeal received on : 09/08/2011 Information Sought:
1. Certified copies of materials purchased and supply order issued for all items by the Dirstirict Administration from the year 1991 to 2009.
2. Certified copies of the list of materials purchased and received for Tsunami victims from private and Govt. By whom, and where the materials was supplied and who issued the above materials to the different Tehsils of these islands.
3. Certified copies of the Stock and issue register of Tsunami materials received and supplied.
4. Certified copies of the details showing the total fund received and allotted to the Tsunami victims by the District Administration, Govt. of India, Prime Ministers fund and Various agencies by the district Administration.
5. Certified copies of the statement showing the fund released to the Tsunami Victims and the fund remaining with the Dist. Admin.
6. Inspection of the all files and registers, file notings and documents of Tsunami victims from the Dist. Admn. Office in the above said purpose.
7. All the above said statements and documents be given year wise and Tehsil wise respectively.
The PIO Reply With reference to your application dated 28/10/2010 you are requested to inspect the documents in the office of Asstt. Comm. (R& DM) on any working day during working hours and mark copies of records actually required by you.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was given by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"PIO (Assistant Commissioner R& DM) is directed to provide all possible assistance to the appellant. A plain copy of this order is issued to the PIO (AC (R& DM) as well as the appellant."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information had been given by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Yogesh Pratap, PIO & ADM on video conference from NIC-Port Blair Studio;
The Appellant ahs sought clearly very voluminous information seeking copies of materials purchased and supply order issued for all items by the District Administration from the year 1991 to 2009 is extremely voluminous and no administration would be able to supply this kind of information. Despite this the PIO has offered an inspection of records which has also not been done by the Appellant. Despite this the PIO states that he has sent some of the information to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 25 November 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (BK)