Central Information Commission
Koshy P J vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 12 May, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/RM/A/2014/003543/MP
Appellant : Shri Koshy PJ, Thiruvananthapuram
Public Authority : SCTIMST, Thiruvananthapuram
Date of Hearing : May 4, 2017
Date of Decision : May 10, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Not present.
Respondent : Ms Maya Nandkumar, Scientist & CPIO and Shri
Nagesh, Scientist and former CPIO - through VC
RTI application : 04.01.2014
CPIO's reply : 07.02.2014
First appeal : 26.02.2014
FAA's order : 21.03.2014
Second appeal : 10.05.2014
ORDER
1. Shri Koshy PJ, the appellant, soguht information regarding Ms Shiny George Ambat, Financial Adviser, as to whether she had been given an office order from P&A Department for reimbursing her residential telephone bills along with its copy and whether any bill for this residential telephone was reimbursed and the amount of the same; period within which conveyance allowance refund for a particular month was to be claimed; who was the competent authority to approve the arrears for a belated claim; whether she made a belated claim along with copy of the same; whether she got CUG connections for making calls over and above entitled calls, etc. through 13 points.
2. The CPIO provided a reply to the first two points and about the rest informed the appellant that his request had been forwarded to the sections concerned/custodian and information would be made available on its receipt. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority stating that he had not received reply to points 3 to 13 of his RTI application. The FAA advised him to contact the custodian with regard to personal information being sought about the officer and as regards copy of sanction to pay penalty for delay in paying a bill from KSEB, it would be provided on its receipt from the custodian. Not having received any further information, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission reiterating that he had not been provided information from 3 to 12 of his RTI application and it was not furnished to him purposely and requested for the same.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him.
4. The respondents stated that they had supplied complete information to the appellant by registered post on 7.2.2014 itself. The rest of the information needed some more time to be collected. Therefore, they had collected and provided later on 7.4.2014.
5. On hearing the respondents and going through the available records, the Commission observes that while respondents sent the information on 7.4.2014, the appellant perhaps did not receive it as his second appeal is dated 10.5.2014. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to send a copy of the reply on points 3 to 13 again within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to :
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technologies Medical Sciences & Technologies Medical College Post Medical College Post Thiruvananthapuram-695011 Thiruvananthapuram-695011 Shri Koshy PJ, Advocate P Devasahayam Associates Vanchiyoor PO Thiruvananthapuram-695035