Central Information Commission
Pijush Kanti Ghosh vs Visva-Bharati on 22 November, 2022
CIC/VISBH/A/2021/652185
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/VISBH/A/2021/652185
In the matter of:
Pijush Kanti Ghosh ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Visva-Bharati, Central
Administrative Building,
Santiniketan, Birbhum,
West Bengal - 731235
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 15.06.2021
CPIO replied on : Not on Record
First Appeal filed on : 16.07.2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record
Second Appeal received on : 27.10.2021
Date of Hearing : 18.11.2022
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Pijush Kanti Ghosh, participated in the hearing through
video conferencing from NIC Birbhum.
Respondent: Shri Maloy Sutradhar, Assistant Registrar & CPIO,
participated in the hearing through video conferencing from NIC Birbhum.
Page 1 of 7
CIC/VISBH/A/2021/652185
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 15.06.2021 seeking information as under:Page 2 of 7
CIC/VISBH/A/2021/652185 Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.07.2021, which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority as per available records.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of non- receipt of information from the Respondent.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application.Page 3 of 7
CIC/VISBH/A/2021/652185 The Respondent submitted that after adjudication of the First Appeal by the First Appellate Authority vide letter dated 14.12.2021, a reply has been given to the Appellant on 03.01.2022. The contents of First Appellate Authority's order dated 14.12.2021 are as under:
The contents of letter dated 03.01.2022 are as under:
He further submitted that the delay in providing the above reply occurred due to second wave of Covid-19 pandemic at that point of time because of which the university was closed for some time. He furthermore added that a reply received from the Admission and Coordination Cell on 16.11.2022 has also been given to the Appellant. The contents of the same are as under:Page 4 of 7
CIC/VISBH/A/2021/652185 A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri Maloy Sutradhar, Assistant Registrar & CPIO, Visva-Bharati, vide letter dated 17.11.2022, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
The Commission interjected and quizzed the Appellant as to whether he wants to avail an opportunity of inspection of the relevant records qua which he is seeking information, he replied in affirmative. The Respondent also agreed for the same.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that though adequate reply on Page 5 of 7 CIC/VISBH/A/2021/652185 the basis of available records has been given by the Respondent vide letter dated 03.01.2022 and 16.11.2022 and just to allay the apprehension raised by the Appellant during the hearing, the Commission deems it expedient to direct Shri Maloy Sutradhar, Assistant Registrar & CPIO, to facilitate the Appellant to inspect the relevant records as sought in the present RTI Application on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and in writing. Copy of documents, if desired, should be provided to the Appellant free of cost up to 25 pages, and beyond those, prescribed fees shall be charged as per the RTI Rules, 2012. The said direction should be complied with, by the CPIO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report of the same be duly sent to the Commission, enumerating the details of documents inspected and copy of documents provided. The Respondent is further directed that while complying with the directions of the Commission, all the personal information/identifying particulars of any third parties should be adequately redacted/blackened out. The Commission further directs the Respondent that no information shall be disclosed to the Appellant which is exempted from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 22.11.2022 Page 6 of 7 CIC/VISBH/A/2021/652185 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Visva- Bharati, Central Administrative Building, Santiniketan, Birbhum, West Bengal - 731235
2. The Central Public Information Officer Visva-Bharati, Central Administrative Building, Santiniketan, Birbhum, West Bengal - 731235
3. Mr. Pijush Kanti Ghosh Page 7 of 7