Central Information Commission
Ms.Prashanthi P. vs Niper, Hyderabad on 28 October, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/NIPHY/A/2021/625000
Ms.Prashanthi P. .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education &
Research (Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers),
Balanagar, Hyderabad-500037 (Telangana).
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.04.2021
CPIO replied on : 10.05.2021
First appeal filed on : 11.05.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 17.06.2021
Second Appeal received at CIC : 22.06.2021
Date of Hearing : 27.10.2022
Date of Decision : 27.10.2022
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:Page 1 of 5
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 10.05.2021, as under:
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 11.05.2021.
• The FAA vide order dated 17.06.2021 held as under:Page 2 of 5
• Written submission has been received from CPIO, NIPER vide letter dated 21.10.2022 as under :Page 3 of 5
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Absent Respondent: S. Venkateshwarulu, CPIO/Administrative Officer, NIPER The Respondent submitted that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Appellant within stipulated time frame. He further submitted that he would abide by the order of the Commission if any.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their written submission along with annexures, dated 21.10.2022, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Perusal of records reveals that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act from available official records, has been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. No legal infirmity is found in the Page 4 of 5 response furnished by the Respondent. Moreover, the Appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear and buttress the case despite service of hearing notice Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 5