Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Alexander Moudiappa vs Directorate Of Higher And Technical ... on 27 April, 2023

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

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

द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DHTED/A/2022/605668-UM

Mr. ALEXANDER MOUDIAPPA
                                                                     ....अपीलकताा/Appellant
                                        VERSUS
                                          बनाम

CPIO,
The CPIO/Nodal Officer(RTI Cell)
Karaikal Polytechnic College,
Varichikudy South, Puducherry-609609



The CPIO/Nodal Office(RTI Cell)
Directorate of Higher and Technical Education,
(PIPMATE), College Road, College Road,
Near Wp College, Lawspet, Puducherry, 605008

                                                                .... प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing     :            13.04.2023
Date of Decision    :            27.04.2023

Date of RTI application                                              22.09.2021
CPIO's response                                                      20.10.2021
Date of the First Appeal                                             10.12.2021
First Appellate Authority's response                                 10.01.2022
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 20.10.2021 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA.The FAA vide order dated 10.01.2022, also furnished a reply to the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: The appellant attended the hearing through AC. Respondent: The respondent was not present despite notice.

The respondent remained absent during the hearing despite notice. The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that partial, false, and Page 2 of 3 misleading information was provided by the CPIO. The appellant further stated that the information sought by him was wrongly denied by the CPIO on two points -06 & 07.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission directs the respondent to follow the procedure for providing third party information as laid down under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act by seeking the opinion of the third party concerned and thereafter taking a decision regarding the disclosure of information. The above directions shall be complied with, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission..

Moreover, the Commission takes a serious view of the absence of the CPIOs, despite notice and directs him to submit a written statement before the Commission, explaining his absence, along with the comments of the First Appellate Authority, before 12.05.2023, both by post and by uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link- paper-compliance/add.

The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सच ू ना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवंसत्याद्वपतप्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 27.04.2023 Page 3 of 3