Central Information Commission
Mr. A.K. Ramadoss vs Puducherry Municipality on 11 August, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.2633/ICPB/2008
F.No. PBC/2007/0534
August 11, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section18
[Hearing at Puducherry on 24.7.2008 at 3.45 p.m.]
Appellant: Mr. A.K. Ramadoss
Public authority: Puducherry Municipality
Mr. N. Sumathi, Commissioner & PIO
Parties Present: For Respondent:
Mr. N. Sumathi, Commissioner
Mr. K. Thanuiarasy, Field Surveyor
Appellant not present.
FACTS:
The appellant has sought information under RTI Act by his application dated 14.11.2006 regarding action taken on his three complaints made in connection with encroachment of road. Having not received any reply, the appellant preferred appeal before the first AA on 8.1.2007. Having not received any information the appellant preferred this appeal before the State Information Commission, which has been transferred to this Commission as the State Commission was wound up. Comments were called for from the public authority, which is received on 20.2.2008.
DECISION:
2. This case came up for hearing on 24.7.2008, which was attended by the concerned officials of the Department. The appellant did not attend the hearing.
I have gone through the RTI application and other replies received in this connection. The parties were heard in detail. The appellant is only wanting to know the action taken on his complaints. During the hearing the PIO explained the position that the issue happened during the time of his predecessor and after he has joined when this appellant represented the action has been initiated and eviction orders were issued in respect of the encroachment. It is apparent from the records the appellant has not received any reply till the Commission called for comments and copy of the comments has also been endorsed to the appellant only on 20.2.2008. Under RTI Act, the CPIO and AAs are designated authorities and they have to dispose of the RTI cases within 30/45 days. This should have been followed strictly. I, therefore, direct the CPIO to show-cause why penalty cannot be imposed on her under Section 20(1) of RTI Act for not giving timely 1 reply to the RTI application. Apart from this, the CPIO is directed to provide point-wise reply to the appellant from the time the application was received till action taken by the Municipality in this regard should be communicated to him in a chronological order. The above direction should be carried out within 15 days from the date of receipt of this decision. On these lines, the appeal is disposed of.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar) Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar Address of parties :
1. Mr. N. Sumathi, Commissioner & PIO, Puducherry Municipality, Puducherry.
2. Mr. A.K. Ramadoss, No. 1, Vasugi Street, Kosapalayam, Puducherry-
605013 2