Central Information Commission
Mrbelle Damodara Shenoy vs Csio,Chandigarh on 15 February, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/KY/A/2015/001120
Appellant : Shri Belle Damodara Shenoy
784/4, Jardin Apartments, Alto-Betim
Bardez, Goa-403521
Public Authority : The CPIO
M/o Science and Technology
CSIR-Institute of Microbial Technology
Sec-39A, Chandigarh-160036
Date of Hearing : 15.02.2016
Date of Decision : 15.02.2016
Presence:
Appellant : Absent
CPIO : Shri Jaswant Rai, Administrative Officer & PIO
FACTS:
I. Vide RTI application dated 27.03.2015, the appellant sought information on sole issue.
II. CPIO, vide its response dated 24.04.2015, denied to provided the information u/s 7 (9).
III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 24.04.2015, as desired information not provided.
IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide his order dated 07.06.2015, upheld the views of CPIO.
V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 08.06.2015, are contained in the Memorandum of Second Appeal.
HEARING Appellant opted to be absent despite of our due notice to him. Respondents appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 27.03.2015, sought information from the respondents on sole issue. Respondents, vide their response dated 24.04.2015, allegedly denied the required information to the appellant. Being Page 1 of 3 aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 24.04.2015 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 07.06.2015, upheld the decision of CPIO. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the CPIO, vide his response dated 24.04.2015, denied the required information to the appellant by taking a plea under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005. Further, learned FAA, vide his order dated 07.06.2015, disposed of the FA by upholding the views of CPIO.
3. The Commissioner heard the submissions made by respondents at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 27.03.2015, respondent's response dated 24.04.2015, FAA's order dated 07.06.2015, other material made available on record and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
4. In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commission is of the considered view that the plea taken by CPIO under section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005 appears to be justified in the eyes of Law. As such, there is no legal infirmity either in CPIO's response or FAA's order. Therefore, the CPIO's response dated 24.04.2015 and FAA's order dated 07.06.2015 are hereby upheld being legally tenable. In view of this, the appellant's second appeal deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, it is dismissed.
5. Apart from above, the appellant's second appeal is also a non-pressed, despite of our due notice to him.
The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Krishan Avtar Talwar) Deputy Registrar The CPIO M/o Science and Technology CSIR-Institute of Microbial Technology Sec-39A, Chandigarh-160036 Shri Belle Damodara Shenoy 784/4, Jardin Apartments, Alto-Betim Bardez, Goa-403521 Page 2 of 3 Page 3 of 3