Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

P Lakshmanacharyulu vs Ut Of Puducherry on 24 February, 2026

                                                  CIC/UTPON/C/2024/127471

                                  के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                                बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/UTPON/C/2024/127471

P Lakshmanacharyulu                                    ...िशकायतकता/Complainant

                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम
CPIO: Sri Venkateswara
Group of Temples, (PUducherry).                        ... ितवादीगण /Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:

RTI : 20.02.2024            FA     : Nil.                  Complaint : 11.07.2024

CPIO : 14.03.2024           FAO : 26.06.2024               Hearing   : 20.02.2026


Date of Decision: 20.02.2026

                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                                   Shri P R Ramesh
                                      ORDER

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. Please furnish me copies of HUNDI funds particulars i.e, Receipts and their bank deposit details of Sri Venkateswara swamy temple, Yanam.

2. Please furnish me copies of Expenses from the Hundi amount. (Xerox copies)

3. Please furnish me copy of your Letter to HRI Commissioner for Brahmotsavas' Sanction(held in the month of October).

CIC/UTPON/C/2024/127471

4. Please furnish me HRI dept. Expenditure armount to various works i.e., payment made to name of the Hereditary Archaka, paid amount to each Hereditary archaka (Particulars & Xerox copies of each concerned).

5. Please furnish me Amount is given in the form of bank cheques. If, yes please furnish me bank cheque number, date and amount.

6. Please furnish me your letter to HRI for sanction for Dhanurmasotsavas (Pongal Festival held in the months of December,23 and January, 2024) expenses. What amount You have given to each Hereditary Archaka and to the assistant Archakas, their names and amount you have given. (Xerox copies of concerned).

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"Applicant may inspect the files pertaining to his queries on 18.03.2024 during office hours at 4.00 P.M to 6.00 P.M. After verification of the files, concerned copies will be supplied to the applicant after paying Rs.2/- per each page."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 26.06.2024 observed as under :-

3 The appellant sought the information on payment to the Archakas, whereas, the Public information Officer permitted to collect the available information in the file whether the appellant perused the file is not known. There is no infirmity in the reply. However, the grievances in the payment may be submitted in the form of request to the temple. The Public Information Officer may verify and do the needful. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off.

4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 11.07.2024.

CIC/UTPON/C/2024/127471 Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Complainant: Present through video-conference.

Respondent: Shri R Jyothi Vekadeswara Rao- participated in the hearing through videoconference.

5. The Complainant inter alia submitted that he is satisfied with reply received from the CPIO and information as sought has been provided by the CPIO.

6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that inspection of records was offered to the Complainant. Further, information as desired by the Complainant has been duly provided to him.

Decision:

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that an appropriate reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act has been provided by the Respondent. Since records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information on the part of the CPIO, the Commission concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of Section 18 or Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the instant case. Furthermore, the Complainant during hearing expressed his satisfaction with the information provided by the PIO. Hence, intervention of the Commission is not required in the instant case. The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Page 3 of 4 CIC/UTPON/C/2024/127471 Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:

1 The CPIO Temple Administrative Officer, Sri Venkateswara Group of Temples, O/o. the Yanam Municipality, Yanam-533464 (PUducherry) 2 P Lakshmanacharyulu Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)