Central Information Commission
Mr.P.Kannan vs Ut Of Andaman And Nicobar on 22 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/2011/002210/15838
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002210
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. P. Kannan
M/s Kembu Studio,
Pongy Kyaung,
Port Blair.
Ph - 09442226555.
Respondent : Mr. Yogesh Pratap
Public Information Officer & ADM
Andaman & Nicobar Administration,
O/o The Dy. Commissioner,
South Andaman District,
Port Blair-744101.
RTI application filed on : 28/12/2010
PIO replied : 18/01/2011
First appeal filed on : 17/03/2011
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal received on : 09/08/2011
Information sought: -
1. Certified copies of the date of publication of the "Auction details" in the media and in the notice board.
2. Certified copies of the list of Auctioned materials - if so any.
3. Certified copies of the auction held if any along with the date of Auction and details of Auction conducted -- if so any -- and the copy of the Auction proceedings.
4. Certified copies of the name & address of the parties participated in the Auction.
5. Certified copies of the Govt. officials -- their name & designation those who had conducted the Auction.
6. Certified copies of the name & address of the highest bidder who won the Auction.
7. Certified copies of the documents related to the Auction amount deposited by the bidder.
PIO response:-
With reference to your RTI application filed under RTI Act 2005 dated 28/12/2010 you are informed to deposit Rs.22/-(Rs. Twenty Two on1y) and collect the information from this office on office hours.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information was given by the PIO. Information was provided only about 2009 whereas the Appellant has sought information about the entire period from 1998 to 2010.Page 1 of 2
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA): Not mentioned.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply received by the Appellant and no order had passed by FAA.
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 Commission asked the respondent why information had been provided only with respect to the year 2009 whereas the Appellant had sought the information for the period 1990 to 2010. The PIO stated that auctions were carried out only in 2009 and hence the information available has been provided. No other auctions were carried out during the entire period.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records has been provided to the Appellant. 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 22 November 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA) Page 2 of 2