Central Information Commission
Mrgangadhara Rao vs Indian Navy on 22 July, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi- 110067.
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No : CIC/RM/A/2014/000018-AB
In the matter of:
Shri Gangadhara Rao, Ex-Serviceman,
D.No. 57-4-25/A, Durganagar,
Kancharapalem,
Visakhapatnam-530008. ...Appellant
Vs.
Office of the Public information Officer
Headquarters,
Eastern Naval Command,
Naval Base Post,
Visakhapatnam-530014. ..Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 01.10.2013
CPIO reply : 24.10.2013
First Appeal : 29.10.2013
FAA Order : Not on record
Second Appeal : 20.11.2013
Date of hearing : 22.07.2016
Information sought:
The appellant had sought status report of the action taken on Director Gen Resettlement's letter No.0515/Petition/DGR/Emp-3 dated 31st July 2013. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order On the appointed date and time, the appellant was not present despite valid and timely notice. Heard the respondent CPIO Cdr. Raju.
During the hearing it was submitted by the respondent CPIO that the appellant had submitted similar other applications in regard to which information was provided to him separately. In the second appeal the appellant had submitted that he had not got final reply on 1 the action taken on the DG's letter dated 31.07.13 which was not given by the respondent on the plea that appellant's representation to the DG dated 4th July, 2013 was not provided.
The appellant was not present to challenge the contention of the respondent PIO. On perusal of the case record and that on the basis of submission of the respondent it was observed that the entire matter is not processed further by the PIO and the FAA to locate the petition of the appellant addressed to DG on 4th July, 2013 though it was requested to the appellant to provide a copy but somehow this copy was not provided and hence they could not provide a final reply to the appellant.
It appears from the record that the appellant had submitted that DG has forwarded his representation to the concerned authority of Defence to process his case, however, nothing was done and the concerned PIO could not provide the reply.
The fact that a copy of the representation of the appellant dated 4 th July annexed to the second appeal memo was not received by the concerned Defence unit is somewhat strange. This points towards lack of effective mechanism for preservation of old records as well as lack of coordination among various field units.
Be that as it may, the appellant is advised, in case he is still desirous of receiving information under the RTI Act, to provide a copy of his representation addressed to the DG on 4th July, 2013 to the PIO, H.Q. Eastern Naval Command Vishakhapatnam to enable the PIO to provide the said information. The Commission further, directs the CPIO to provide the requisite information after receipt of the copy of the above mentioned representation by the appellant, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the above mentioned copy of the representation from the appellant.
With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K.Talapatra) Dy. Registrar 2 3