के (cid:3)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:18), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/DOFWL/A/2023/649433 Alok Ratn Tripathi .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम PIO, Department of Forest and Wildlife, A Block, 2nd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 110002 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 21.01.2025 Date of Decision : 31.01.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 07.08.2023 CPIO replied on : 18.12.2023 First appeal filed on : 12.09.2023 First Appellate Authority’s order : 10.10.2023

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.08.2023 (online) seeking the following information:

“I am writing this application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to seek information regarding the category of the person who joined through post code 67/14 in your department.

I request you to kindly provide me with the following information:

1. Whether the person who joined through post code 67/14 in your department belongs to UR category or OBC category?

2. If the person belongs to OBC category, please provide the relevant documents that prove his/her OBC status.

3. please provide the name of the wildlife inspector who joined through post code 67/14 in your department.

4. Please provide the information about according to DSSSB result of wildlife inspector post code 67/14( result notice no 1183) Roll no

111406700001 joined as wildlife inspector or not.”

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 10.10.2023, held as under:

“The SPIO(HQ) is hereby directed to provide information immediately. He is also advised to give the information/reply promptly to the RTI applicants as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 within the stipulated time period, in future.

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby disposed off.”

In compliance with FAA order, the CPIO vide its letter dated 18.12.2023 had provided point-wise reply/information to the Appellant.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Singh, Section Officer and ACPIO and Sunil Kumar Mishra, Junior Assistant present in person.

Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:

“1. UR

2. as above

3. Shri Vineet Bhat

4. Yes.”

The Respondents submitted that vide their letter dated 18.12.2023, complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on their record has been provided to the Appellant. The Respondents reiterated that no other information is available in their records except as already provided to the Appellant. Decision:

The Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant appeal was non-furnishing of complete information by the CPIO. The Commission observes that complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on their record has already been provided to the Appellant as per his RTI application vide letter dated 18.12.2023.

It is an admitted fact that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant. The PIO can only provide information which is readily available in their records.

In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.

The Commission observes from the second appeal of the Appellant that he has not received letter dated 18.12.2023 of the Respondent. In view of this, the Respondent is directed to again send a copy of their letter dated 18.12.2023 to the Appellant, within a week from