Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

P Purushothaman vs Ut Of Puducherry on 9 December, 2021

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                      के न्द्रीयसच
                                                 ू नाआयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                                    बाबागगं नाथमागग,मुननरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

शिकायतसंख्या / Complaint No. CIC/UTPON/C/2020/691743-UM

Mr. P. PURUSHOTHAMAN

                                                              ....शिकायतकताा/Complainant

                                        VERSUS
                                          बनाम

CPIO,
O/O The Office Manager
Puducherry Housing Board
Puducherry-605005



                                                               .... प्रशतवादीगण /Respondent



Date of Hearing     :            07.12.2021
Date of Decision    :            09.12.2021

Date of RTI application                                           10.09.2020
CPIO's response                                                   09.10.2020
Date of the First Appeal                                          12.10.2020
First Appellate Authority's response                              27.10.2020
Complaint dated                                                   Nil

                                       ORDER

FACTS The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 09 points regarding one Mr. P. Iswarane, Jr. Engineer, Puducherry Housing Board, as under:-

The CPIO vide letter dated 09.10.2020 furnished a reply to the Complainant in Tamil language . Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 27.10.2020, directed the PIO to supply the required inforamtion to the Complainant within 15 days after the reciept of the file from the office of the Chairman (PHB). Dissatisfied due to non-reciept of any reply from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Complainant: The complainant attended the hearing Respondent: The respondent Shri P. Dhinakarn, Superintendent, PHB attended the hearing.

The Complainant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that false and misleading information was provided by the CPIO. The Respondent present during the hearing submitted that a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Complainant. Further, the respondent informed that the information sought was pertaining to the third party and hence information cannot be provided.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, and also after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission observes that due information has been provided to the complainant by the respondent. The Commission further observes that since the information sought was provided to the complainant, it cannot be said that it was malafidely withheld by the respondent. Hence, in the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to impose penalty on the CPIO.

The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.

                                                            (UdayMahurkar) (उदयमाहूरकर)
                                               (Information Commissioner) (सच       ु )
                                                                            ू नाआयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अशिप्रमाशणतएवंसत्याशितप्रशत)




(R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव)
(Dy. Registrar) (उि-िजं ीयक)
011-26182598
शदनांक / Date: 09.12.2021




                                                                             Page 3 of 3