Central Information Commission
Seshachalam vs Ut Of Puducherry on 28 March, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/UTPON/A/2022/131428 -UM
Mr. Seshachalam
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
THE PIO/Nodal Officer(RTI Cell)
O/o Special Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management,
505, Revenue Complex, KamarajSalai, Saram, Puducherry-605 013
The PIO/Nodal Officer(RTI Cell)
Law Department, Chief Secretariat,
Puducherry 605001
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.03.2023
Date of Decision : 28.03.2023
Date of RTI application 01.03.2022
CPIO's response 30.03.2022
Date of the First Appeal 02.05.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 25.05.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 01.07.2022
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-
Page 1 of 5 Page 2 of 5The PIO-cum-Special Officer vide letter dated 30.03.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant, as under:-Page 3 of 5
Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA.The FAA vide order dated 25.05.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Adv Arul Ksosh, attended the hearing, Respondent: Mr. R. Coumarane, Special Officer, attended the hearing.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought information regarding number of Tahsildars, Deputy Tahsildars, Revenue inspectors and Village Administrative officers who were involved and booked for issuing false certificates for CENTAC Admission in 2014 etc. He submitted that an improper reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfill his purpose. While deposing in the hearing, he stated that the Department wilfully and deliberately misled and hid information and requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that vide letter dated 30.03.2022 a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. He said that the information sought from point nos. 2 to 16 of the RTI application constituted personal information of a third party, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, he said they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant, he said. The Appellant countered the claim of the Respondent and stated that the CPIO is making mockery of the provisions of RTI act 2005 and indulging in only a formality and giving misinformation and that he filed this RTI application in larger public interest.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 21.03.2023 which is taken on record.Page 4 of 5
DECISION:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by both the parties and perusal of records, directs the Respondent to provide an updated and concise revised reply to the Appellant, barring third party information as per section 8 of the RTI act, 2005, 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.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पजं ीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 28.03.2023 Page 5 of 5