Central Information Commission
Arun vs Ut Of Puducherry on 13 April, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायतसंख्या / Complaint No. CIC/UTPON/C/2021/699446-UM
Mr. ARUN
....निकायतकताग/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
O/o Tahsildar,
Taluk office,Oulgret ,
ECR Road, Kottupalayam, Lawspet Post,
Puducherry-605008
.... प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.04.2022
Date of Decision : 13.04.2022
Date of RTI application 07.11.2020
CPIO's response 03.12.2020
Date of the First Appeal 04.12.2020
First Appellate Authority's response 04.01.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Complaint by the Commission 10.01.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points, as under:-
The CPIO, O/o Tahsildar, vide letter dated 03.12.2020 furnished a reply to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal. FAA vide order dated 04.01.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO. Thereafter, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Arun participated through AC, Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Khanna, Tahsildar, participated through AC.
The Complainant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought copy of land grab file of Smt. Lakshmi w/o Manjini (grandmother of the Complainant). He further stated that the information sought was wrongly denied by the Respondent, stating that the information pertains to the third party i.e Smt. Lakshmi therefore, could not be furnished. He explained that his grandmother gave a land grab complaint against the Sub Registrar and the concern persons who created the forgery document at Sub collector office on 31st October 2018 and it was forwarded to Taluk office for enquiry but no proper action has been taken in this regard. He requested the Commission to impose penalty on the Respondent as per law.
The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 03.12.2020 they had furnished a reply as per the provisions of RTI Act. He further submitted that the information sought belongs to third party and hence, denied to him. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Complainant.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 06.04.2022 which is taken on record.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that vide letter dated 03.12.2020 an appropriate reply has been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितएवंसत्यापितप्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के. राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 13.04.2022