O R D E R
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 22.05.2021 seeking information on the following three points:
The CPIO vide online reply dated 27.07.2021, informed to the Appellant as under:
Page 2 of 6
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.06.2021. The First Appellate Authority vide online reply dated 26.06.2021, forwarded First Appeal to concerned First Appellate Authority.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing and the same has been confirmed by Shri Rakesh, Network Engineer, from NIC Nanital. The Respondent submitted that a reply qua the instant RTI Application has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 27.07.2021. The Commission interjected and remarked the Respondent the reply with respect to point no. 2 and 3 of the instant RTI Application is not adequate to which the Respondent submitted the information sought in point no. 2 of the instant RTI Application is available in public domain and with respect to point no. 3 of the instant RTI Application, though the information sought in the RTI Application pertains to a private college, they can obtain the relevant information from the concerned custodian and provide the same to the Appellant.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from the Appellant vide letter dated 07.11.2022 and the same is on record.
Page 3 of 6
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri Punit Sahni, PIO, NRC-NCTE, vide letter dated 15.11.2022 and the same has been marked to the Appellant, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that reply provided by the then CPIO with respect to point no. 2 and 3 of the instant RTI Application is not appropriate and the Commission admonishes the then CPIO for providing such mindless and incongruous replies. The Commission cautions the Respondent to be careful in future while dealing with matters pertaining to the RTI Act.
Be that as it may, in the light of the submission made during the hearing, the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent to provide revised reply
Page 4 of 6
with respect to point no. 2 and 3 of the instant RTI Application, to the Appellant with a copy marked to the Commission, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. In the event Respondent is required to seek further assistance from any other office/officer for compliance with the above directions, the same shall be sought under Section 5(4) of RTI Act. A copy of this order has to be served upon the then CPIO by the present
CPIO.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties. The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पाडंव)
Information Commissioner (सचूना आयु )
दनाकं / Date: 19.11.2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26105027
Page 5 of 6
Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) National Council for Teacher Education, G-7, Sector-10, Near Sector-10 Metro Station, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075
2. The Central Public Information Officer National Council for Teacher Education, G-7, Sector-10, Near Sector-10 Metro Station, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075
3. Mr. Fareed Ahmad
Page 6 of 6