Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Alexander Moudiappa A vs Directorate Of Higher And Technical ... on 12 December, 2022

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                        के न्द्रीयसच
                                                   ू नाआयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                     बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
                             Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                               नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DHTED/A/2022/627889 -UM

Mr. ALEXANDER MOUDIAPPA A
                                                                       ....अपीलकताा/Appellant
                                             VERSUS
                                               बनाम
        CPIO
        PIO/ Nodal Officer (RTI Cell)
        PIPMATE, Lawspet ,
        Puducherry-605008
                                                                       प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing        :              05.12.2022
Date of Decision       :              12.12.2022
Date of RTI application                                               18.11.2021
CPIO's response                                                       21.12.2021
Date of the First Appeal                                              28.01.2022
First Appellate Authority's response                                  28.02.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                  Nil
                                            ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-

The PIO vide letter dated 21.12.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 28.02.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Present through AC Respondent: Ms Sujata Assistant cum PIO. Present through AC The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that partial information has been furnished to him. He said that no information has been furnished on point no 1 of the RTI Application. The Respondent stated that point no 1 of the RTI Application pertains to Karaikal polytechnic college.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the CPIO to collect the information from the concerned authority and furnish a suitable information to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.

(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पजं ीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनाक ं / Date: 12.12.2022 Page 3 of 3