Central Information Commission
Triloki Nath vs National Institute Of Technology, ... on 14 March, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NITMZ/A/2022/667181
Triloki Nath ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: National Institute of
Technology, Mizoram ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 18.09.2022 FA : 25.10.2022 SA : 15.12.2022
CPIO : 29.02.2024 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 11.03.2024
Date of Decision: 14.03.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Whether the information was furnished with reference to letter No. DOFA/1823 Dated 13/04/2016. If yes, then the date of furnishing is the same.
(ii) Kindly attach a certified copy of the letter providing the information asked above in Sl. No. 1.
(iii) No. of days you require for processing just one application.Page 1 of 3
(iv) Whether the application form of Dr. Triloki Nath, for the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar, has been forwarded by appropriate authorities of your institute. If yes, kindly provide a copy of the same.
(v) The date of NOC issued to Dr. Triloki Nath by the institute to appear in the interview of the university. Please enclose a copy of the same. ...etc.
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 25.10.2022. The FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.12.2022. Subsequently, the CPIO replied to the RTI application on 29.02.2024.
4. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Lalthianghlimi, Dy Registrar, attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The appellant submitted that there was a delay in providing the information by the respondent.
6. The respondent submitted that the RTI application could not be responded within time as number of files w.r.t information sought could not be traced out in their office records. She further submitted that due to inadequate space in the administrative building, files and furniture were shifted to another building because of which the records/ documents were misplaced. She stated that now, they had traced the files and provided the complete information to the appellant. She apologised for the delayed reply. When enquired by the Commission regarding the recent reply of the respondent, the appellant submitted that he had received a satisfactory reply on all the points of the RTI application.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by both the parties and perusal of records, observes that due to office shifting process, relevant files could not be traced on time, therefore, the RTI application was not responded within time frame by the respondent. During the hearing, the respondent submitted that after tracing the files, complete information has been provided to the Page 2 of 3 appellant. She apologised for the delayed reply. The Commission directs the respondent to give in writing what systemic corrections respondent have brought about to ensure that such a thing will not happen or repeat in future within 2 months from the date of receipt of the order. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 14.03.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO National Institute of Technology, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Chaltlang, Aizawl, Mizoram-796012
2. Triloki Nath Page 3 of 3