Central Information Commission
Dr Raja Muzaffar Bhat vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 5 May, 2022
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOJK/A/2020/697237
Dr. Raja Muzaffar Bhat ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO, Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Board, Srinagar
2. PIO, Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection
Recruitment Board
Through: S Harjinder Singh - US, Shri Altaf
Hussain - Administrative Officer and Shri
Farooque Ahmad- SO
Date of Hearing : 04.05.2022
Date of Decision : 05.05.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.09.2020
PIO replied on : 28.09.2020
First Appeal filed on : 30.10.2020
First Appellate Order on : -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 22.12.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2020 seeking information on the following 04 points:-
1. Total Revenue collected by SSRB from March 2016 to September 20th 2020 on account of various kinds of fees collected from Job aspirants.
2. Provide year wise details from 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 (Sept 20th) mentioning the different posts for which the said fees was collected.
3. Names of posts for which fees was collected from job aspirants but the exam was not held?Page 1 of 3
4. Reason for not conducting the exam exam?
The PIO/J&K J&K Service Selection Board, Srinagar vide letter dated 28.09.2020 replied as under:-
"..............The The RTI application was forwarded to the Accounts section for providing the necessary information. The Accounts section has returned the file with plea that the information is lying at Central Office, J&K SSB, Jammu.
In view of the above, you are as such requested to provide the information so that same is provided to the RTI applicant well in time."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.10.2020 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied,, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 28.04.2022 has been en received from the Respondent, Respondent relevant extracts whereof are as under:
A copy opy of the response dated 27.04.2021 mentioned by the Respondent in the above mentioned written submission has also been enclosed therewith and copy of the same has been duly marked to the Appellant.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the s spread pread of the pandemic, COVID-19, 19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone is present for the hearing, while the Appellant has neither attended the hearing despite service of notice in advance ad nor communicated any reason for his absence. The Respondent submitted a written statement indicating that information as available on record, had been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of the RTI Act.Page 2 of 3
Decision Upon perusal of the records of the case, it is noted that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, and available on records with the public authority, had been duly provided by the Respondent. The Appellant has not clarified the cause of his dissatisfaction with the information provided to him, nor is he present for the hearing to buttress his case despite service of notice in advance.
In the given circumstances, the Commission finds no cogent reason to intervene in this case.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
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 3 of 3