Central Information Commission
Prasad Ramchandra Joshi vs Department Of Ayush on 15 January, 2021
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/AYUSH/A/2019/149229
Shri Prasad Ramchandra Joshi ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry of Ayush ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Dr. Himanshu Joshi
Date of Hearing : 14.01.2021
Date of Decision : 15.01.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.05.2019
PIO replied on : -
First Appeal filed on : 13.07.2019
First Appellate Order on : -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 14.10.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated06.05.2019 seeking information on the following 03 points:-
1. Please inform whether New MOU is signed after expiry of tenure of MOU dated 20.01.2017 for monitoring advertisements of AYUSH drugs & medicines? If yes, please provide copy of said new MOU alongwith relevant file notings.
2. If said MOU (dated 20.01.2017) tenure is extended then provide copy of relevant extension order & file notings thereof.
3. Please provide copy of reports submitted by ASCI till date as per terms & conditions of MOU dated 20.01.2017 or any other valid MOU.
Having not received any information from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.07.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submission in the form of an email dated 13.01.2021 has been received from the Respondent which reveals that the RTI application had been duly responded vide letter dated 13.06.2019, enclosing information sought by the Page 1 of 2 Appellant, alongwith an offer of inspection of records to the Appellant. The First Appeal filed by the Appellant had also been adjudicated vide order dated 06.08.2019. Copy of the PIO's reply and FAA's order have been duly enclosed with the submissions made by the Respondent. An earlier case filed by the same Appellant [CIC/AYUSH/A/2018/145330-BJ] and decided by the Commission vide order dated 05.02.2020 has also been mentioned by the Respondent.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing has been scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone is present for the virtual hearing while Appellant has not attended the video conference. Respondent contended that a reply was sent to the RTI application but returned undelivered due to incorrect address. This was duly noted and adjudicated upon by the FAA and the reply was sent once again to the Appellant, pursuant to the FAA's order.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case and averments of the Respondent reveal that information sought by the Appellant had been duly answered by the Respondent. Commission finds no infirmity with the reply of the Respondent. Appellant has not appeared to buttress his case or to explain the cause of his dissatisfaction with the information provided to him.
Under the circumstances, the Commission finds no reason to further adjudicate the instant appeal. The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2