CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.3107/ICPB/2008
F. No. PBA/2008/00376
November 24, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18
[Hearing on 07.11.2008 at 12.00 noon through Video Conferencing between
New Delhi-Puducherry-Yanam]
Appellant: Mr. P. Veerappan
Public authority: Industrial Development (Power) Department
Mr. S. Alphonse, US (Power) & CPIO
Parties Present: For Respondent:
Mr. S. Alphonse, US (Power)
Mr. P. Veerappan-Appellant
FACTS
:
The appellant has sought information under RTI Act by his letter dated
9.11.2007 addressed to the PIO/Under Secretary (Power), Government of
Puducherry, Puducherry regarding action taken by the Sectt. On his appeal
petition submitted under C.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1965 and other details. The PIO
by his reply dated 19.12.2007 has denied the information under section 2(f), 8 (1)
(e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied with this reply the appellant preferred
an appeal before the first AA on 14.1.2008 and the AA has upheld the decision of
PIO vide his order dated 1.2.2008. Aggrieved with this decision, the appellant
preferred this appeal before the Commission on 8.2.2008. Comments were
called for from the public authority vide letter dated 12.5.2008 and the same were
received from Under Secretary(Power) on 2.6.2008. This case was taken up for
hearing on 7.11.2008, which was attended by the appellant from Yanam and the
Under Secretary (Power) attended the hearing representing the Department from
Puducherry.
DECISION:
2. I have gone through the RTI application and other replies received in this
connection. The case was deliberated in detail during the hearing. During the
hearing the appellant has stated that his juniors have been promoted to next post
without considering his name and in this connection he has submitted an appeal
to the appellate authority, viz., Under Secretary to Govt. (Power) and he wanted
to know the action taken on his appeal. Whereas the PIO has stated that this
information is not covered under definition of information and hence rejected the
appeal. This interpretation of the PIO is not correct. The PIO has been directed
1
to intimate the appellant the present status of the appeal as to the action taken
on it within 15 days from the date of receipt of this decision. In these lines the
appeal is disposed of.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and PIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar)
Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :
1. Mr. S. Alphonse, US (Power) & CPIO, Industrial Development (Power)
Department, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
2. Mr. P. Veerappan, No. 6, 132/11, K.V. Sub Station Quarters, Mettacur,
Yanam-533464
2