Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 11679
केኚरीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission , बाबागंगनाथमागग मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई दिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 / Complaint No. CIC/UTPON/C/2022/600066-UM शिकायत संख्या
Mr. Gopikannan …. शिकायतकताा /Complainant VERSUS बनाम CPIO, Puducherry Distilleries Limited, R.S. No. 144 & 145, Door No. 18, Ariyapalayam Village, Villianur, Puducherry - 605 110 …. ्ቚततवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 16.11.2022 Date of Decision : 21.11.2022
| ate of RTI application | 26-11-2021 |
| CPIO’s response | 24-12-2021 |
| Date of the First Appeal | Not on record |
| First Appellate Authority’s response | Not on record |
| Date of diarized receipt of Complaint by the Commission | 01-01-2022 |
ORDER
FACTS
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points, as under:-
The CPIO Puducherry Distilleries Limited vide letter dated 24-12-2021 furnished a reply to the Complainant. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on record of the Commission.
Thereafter, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. Jai Balan, Consultant attended in the hearing.
The Complainant remained absent during the hearing.
The Respondent while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that the Complainant had sought information regarding name of CLR and Managing director appointed in PDL etc. He submitted that vide letter dated 24.12.2021, they had furnished a reply as per record available in their office. He stated that the information sought is voluminous nature and can’t be compiled while some part of the information is very old and not available in their office record. He informed to the Commission that the Complainant is habitual in filing multiple RTI applications just to harass the department. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Complainant, he said.
The Complainant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent.
DECISION
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to put more efforts to search the record and furnish a Suitable and an updated revised reply to the Complainant. If the information sought is not available then the CPIO is directed to furnish an affidavit to the Commission, explaining the factual position regarding the non-availability of the information, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the Complainant. In the case the CPIO files a wrong affidavit the Complainant will have the remedy to approach the court of law under the offence of perjury and contempt of the Commission’s order.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
