Central Information Commission
Geeta vs Indian Council For Cultural Relations on 4 September, 2018
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/ICCRL/A/2018/106356
Geeta ...अपीलकता /Appellant
Versus
बनाम
Central Public Information Officer, ... ितवादी/Respondent
AVR (Hindustani Music) Division,
Indian Council for Cultural Relations,
Azad Bhawan, I P Estate, New Delhi-110002.
Dated of Hearing:- 04-09-2018
Dated of Decision:- 04-09-2018
RTI Application filed on:- 18-09-2017
CPIO replied on:- 26-09-2017
First Appeal filed on:- 27-11-2017
FAA's order:- No Record.
2nd Appeal received on:- 30-01-2018
ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 18-09-2017 seeking following information:-
"1. What are the criteria for upgradation of ICCR's Reference Panel of Artists (HM) (from Proficient to Established)?
2. When ICCR has last auditioned the "empanelled ICCR's Reference Panel of Artists (HM)" for their upgradation (from Proficient to Established?
3. What were the reviews/grading/marks awarded by the Judges to such Artists (HM - related to Dhrupad-NCR Region only) in that audition? Please provide details of the same.
4. Whether individual Artists were informed about the outcome of the Audition?"
2. The appellant filed second appeal on 30-01-2018 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to her. Hearing:
3. The hearing notice of this Commission returned undelivered with remarks of the Postal Authority "No Such Person". Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal (RTI Consultant) represented the respondent in person. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The respondent stated that in order to verify the authenticity/identity of the information seeker, enclosing copy of I.D. proof of the RTI applicant with the RTI application should be made compulsory. In this regard, he referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.W.P. No. 4787 of 2011 (O&M) dated 02-11-2012, wherein, it was observed as follows:-
"23. Further, in all complaints before the Public Information Officer, the appeal before the first appellate authority or any proceedings before the Commission, it should be ensured that the applicant files his proof of identity along with the application. It is for the reason that in some cases, it has come to the notice of this court that the applicants were not identifiable. It would ensure that only the genuine persons file applications."
5. Further, the respondent informed that they had already given a reply to the appellant indicating factual position in the matter vide their letter dated 26- 09-2017 which returned undelivered to their office. The reply given was read out and was found to be satisfactory.
Discussion/observation:
6. This Commission observed that the action/steps taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI application is satisfactory. Further, the notice of this Commission's hearing and the CPIO reply returned undelivered. It is observed that the appellant should have intimated her updated address. Decision:
7. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
8. The RTI applicant(s) are advised to give/intimate their updated postal address.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
Radha Krishna Mathur (राधा कृ ण माथुर) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S.C. Sharma Dy. Registrar एस. सी. शमा , उप-पंजीयक एस. सी.
(011-26186535)