Central Information Commission
Siba Sankar Patro vs National Human Rights Commission on 14 June, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NHRCM/A/2017/181164
Siba Sankar Patro ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, National Human Rights ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Commission, GPO Complex,
INA, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 10.06.2017 FA : 07.08.2017 SA : 29.11.2017
CPIO : 11.07.2017 FAO : 13.09.2017 Hearing : 10.06.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), National Human Rights Commission, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi seeking information on two points pertaining to NHRC Case No. 2342/18/5/2017, inter-alia (i) photo copy of the Page 1 of 4 complaint and the victim's name in relaton to this case, and (ii) time limit for action by the Odisha Human Rights Commission on this NHRC Case.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that he is not satisfied with information provided by the CPIO /FAA. The appellant stated that the CPIO and FAA are the same person by name Sunil Arora. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and invoke Sections 19(8), 20(1) & (2) for taking action against the CPIO and FAA.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Siba Sankar Patro attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Shri Khaleel Ahmad, Dy. Registrar, National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi was present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that though a reply in response to his RTI application has been provided to him, complete information has not been provided to him. He added that though a copy of the complaint has been provided to him, the victim's name has not been provided to him. The appellant further stated that in the column of victim's name, instead of the victim's name, the name of the complainant has been mentioned.
5. The respondent submitted that due to typographical error on the part of Data Entry Operator/Consultant, the name of the complainant has been entered both as the victim and the complainant. The respondent tendered his unconditional apology for this lapse and requested the Commission to condone the same.
Page 2 of 4Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, directs the respondent to provide the name of the victim as well as the complainant relating to the NHRC Case No. 2342/18/5/2017 to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 11.06.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), National Human Rights Commission, Manav Adhikar Bhawan, C-Block, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi-110023.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), National Human Rights Commission, Manav Adhikar Bhawan, C-Block, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi-110023.
3. Shri Siba Sankar Patro, Page 4 of 4