Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

J. Kishoorraaj vs Ut Of Puducherry on 27 March, 2023

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                              केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                           बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीयअपीलसं ख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/UTPON/A/2022/614656-UM

Mr.J. Kishoorraaj
                                                             ....अपीलकताा/Appellant

                                      VERSUS
                                        बनाम



CPIO
1. Centralised Admission Committee (CENTAC),
Pondicherry Engineering College Campus,
Pillaichavady, Puducherry - 605 014



2. O/o Secretary to Govt. (Health),
Govt. of Puducherry,
Health Secretariat, Puducherry-605001

                                                            प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent



Date of Hearing     :            24.03.2023
Date of Decision    :            27.03.2023

Date of RTI application                                             06.12.2021
CPIO's response                                                     05.01.2022
Date of the First Appeal                                            12.01.2022
First Appellate Authority's response                                01.03.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                10.03.2022

                                     ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points, as under:-

The CPIO, Centralised Admission Committee (CENTAC), vide letter dated 05.01.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant.Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 01.03.2022directed the PIO to furnish the remaining available information to the Appellant on free of cost in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.

Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission. HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: The appellant's representative attended the hearing through AC. Respondent: The respondent was not present despite the notice.
The respondent remained absent during the hearing despite notice. The Appellant's representative reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that partial, false, and misleading information was provided by the CPIO. The representative further stated that the respondent has only furnished the document which is related to question on point no.5. However, he said they deliberately failed to provide all other information under points 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7. He said this happened even though the Under Secretary to Government (1st Appellate Authority) had directed the PIO ,CENTAC, to provide the requested information free of cost on 01.03.2022. Further, he informed that the information sought under points 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7 is directly related to the Judgement of Honorable Madras High Court WP No. 563 of 2021 and WMP.Nos. 620 And 623 of 2021 dated 11th January 2021. He said he only provided the document which is related to before the Judgement. The appellant said it glaringly proves that the respondent has deliberately not provided the requested documents and not allowed him to visit the office and verify the files correspondence and therefore the CENTAC Puducherry had failed to implement the Hon'ble Madras High Court direction dated 11.01.2021. He alleged knowingly this was done to protect the involved officials.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the representative and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide an updated and concise revised reply to the Appellant, free of cost, 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.
Moreover, the Commission takes a serious view of the absence of the CPIO, Puducherry Engineering College, and CPIO, Health Department, Puducherry despite notice. The Commission directs him to submit a written statement before the Commission, explaining his absence, along with the comments of the First Appellate Authority, before 28.04.2023, both by post and by uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add.
The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित एवं सत्याभित प्रभत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] भिनांक / Date: 27.03.2023