Central Information Commission
P Purushothaman vs Ut Of Puducherry on 27 May, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/UTPON/C/2021/606666-UM
Mr. P PURUSHOTHAMAN
.... निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Puducherry Housing Board
Puducherry - 605105
.... प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.05.2022
Date of Decision : 27.05.2022
Date of RTI application 18.12.2020
CPIO's response 07.01.2021
Date of the First Appeal 08.01.2021
First Appellate Authority's response 15.02.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on following points, as under:-
The CPIO, Puducherry Housing Board, vide letter dated 07.01.2021 furnished a reply to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal. FAA vide order dated 15.02.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.Thereafter, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Present through AC Respondent: Absent The Complainant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that incomplete information has been furnished to him. He requested the Commission to treat his Complaint as a second appeal as he still requires the information. He claimed that the said persons are involved in illegal allotment of houses and he is himself an aggrieved party in that as he was wrongly denied allotment of a house following his application. He added that he needs their service book as it contains the previous complaints against them of similar nature which will enable him to prove the initiative done to him in the matter if house allotment by some of these six personnel. The Respondent remained absent during the hearing. In spite of several efforts made by the commission he could not be connected.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Complainant, the Commission observes that mere allegations without the evidentiary proofs would not be sufficient to provide the service records of any person hence the reply of CPIO is in line with the law. Therefore no intervention is required in the matter.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत एवं सत्यानित प्रनत) (R. K. Rao) (आर. के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] निनांक / Date: 27.05.2022