Central Information Commission
K Akila vs Ordnance Factory Board on 22 June, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/AB/C/2016/900002
CIC/AB/C/2016/900003
Dated 19.06.2017
Complainant : K. Akila
House No. 7A, 1oth Cross East,
Shri Balaji Nagar, Pappakuruchi Kattur
Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu- 620019
Respondent : The Central Public Information Officer,
Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project (HAPP),
Tiruchirappalli-620025
Date of Hearing : 19.06.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint (s):
RTI application (s) : 12.11.2015, 22.12.2015
CPIO's Replies : 04.12.2015, 12.01.2016
First Appeal (s) : 07.12.2015, 20.01.2016
FAA's Order (s) : 18.12.2015, 22.02.2016
Complaint (s) : 27.12.2015, 02.03.2016
ORDER
1. The complainant filed two identical complaints in case Nos. CIC/AB/C/2016/900002 and 900003 in respect of the RTI applications dated 12.11.2015 and 22.12.2015 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). Both these complaints are being clubbed together and disposed of by this Order.
Page | 1
2. The complainant filed two applications under the RTI Act before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project (HAPP), Tiruchirappalli, seeking information on ten points pertaining to the HAPP factory and the Departmental Pool Accommodation available at HAPP Township, Tiruchirappalli, including, inter alia, (i) the number of employees working at HAPP, Tiruchirappalli and at other establishments like the Accounts Office, Post Office, HAPP Paramhansa Matriculation School, and (ii) the utilization efficiency of the HAPP Departmental Pool Accommodation during the period from 01.01.2012 to 12.11.2015.
3. The complainant filed two complaints before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO denied the information sought under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act and that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had upheld the reply of the CPIO. The complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO concerned to provide complete information to him and to impose a penalty on the erring officials.
Hearing:
4. The complainant, K. Akila was not present despite notice. The respondent, Shri Ashok Kumar Daniel, Additional General Manager, HAPP, Tiruchirappalli, participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
5. The respondent submitted that an identical matter has already been heard and disposed of by the Commission vide Decision No. CIC/CC/A/2016/900861/SD dated 13.01.2017.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that in an identical matter, the Commission vide decision dated 13.01.2017 in File No. CIC/CC/A/2016/900861/SD has already heard and disposed of the matter. Hence, no further action is required in the matter.
Page | 2
7. With the above observations, the complaints are disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.S. Rohilla) Designated Officer Page | 3