CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.2955/ICPB/2008
F. No. PBC/2007/00473
October 22, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18
[Hearing on 13.10.2008 at 12.30 p.m.]
Appellant: Mr. Niranjan Tripathy
Public authority: Archaeological Survey of India
Mr. Shravan Kumar, Sr. Conservation Officer & PIO
Parties Present: Respondent not present.
Appellant not present.
FACTS
:
The appellant has sought information under RTI Act by his letter dated
18.10.2007 addressed to PIO, Office of Assistant Conservator, Archaeological
Survey of India, Konark requesting information pertaining to certain information in
respect of Sun Temple by listing five queries in his application. The appellant
has also enclosed a copy of the application fee and mode of transmission of this
letter by enclosing a copy of the post office receipt along with application. Since
the appellant did not receive any reply to his reminder it has prompted him to file
complaint before the Commission on 8.11.2007. Comments were called for vide
letter dated 9.1.2008 by addressing this letter to CPIO, Ministry of Culture, ASI
Assistant Conservator which was also followed up by a reminder on 28.3.2008
and one more reminder was sent on 10.6.2008 to some other public authority
and the Commission has received the comments only on 31.07.2008 from CPIO-
cum-Senior Conservation Assistant, ASI, Konark by which he informed he has
not received any of the applications sent by the appellant nor by the Commission
and he has only received the letter dated 30.6.2008. This case was listed for
hearing on 13.10.2008 by issuing notices to both the Senior Conservation
Officer-cum-PIO as well as to the appellant. None attended the hearing.
However, it is decided by me to dispose of the appeal on the basis of the
documents available on record.
DECISION:
2. I have gone through the RTI application and other records. The appellant
has submitted the application before the Office of ASI, Konark and he has also
enclosed along with it all the postal receipts. In the comments, the CPIO has
stated the letter has been addressed to Assistant Conservator, ASI, whereas he
1
is only Senior Conservation Assistant, ASI and therefore he has not received this
letter is not acceptable to the Commission since ASI, Konark happens to be the
public authority whether he is Assistant Conservator or Sr. Conservative
Assistant. The person who has received the application should have forwarded
this application to the CPIO concerned, who has to handle the matter. I,
therefore, direct the CPIO to find out from the Receipt Register in the office of
ASI, Konark regarding receipt of this application dated 18.10.2007. Assuming
this letter has not been received, when the Commission has taken up the matter
with the ASI, Puri, Orissa vide letter dated 9.1.2008, 28.03.208 for which also
Commission has not received any reply. The PIO has started taking action only
after the Commission has sent third reminder on 10.6.2008. I, therefore, direct
the CPIO concerned to show-cause why penalty cannot be imposed on him
under section 20(1) of RTI Act for not adhering to the time-frame provided under
the Act. This office cannot be a very big office and this must be a subordinate
office of ASI and there should be proper receipt of applications and proper
handling of RTI letters in such establishments. I also direct the CPIO to submit
how RTI Act has been implemented in ASI, Konark, Puri Division to the
Commission. Apart from that along with this decision a copy of the application
filed by the appellant on 18.10.2007 which consists of annexure in which he is
requesting information against five queries. In his application he has only
requesting specific information which should be provided by the CPIO according
the information that is available on records. I, therefore, direct the CPIO to give
point-wise reply to this application within 15 days and also provide the particulars
of first AA and he should also submit his explanation to show-cause notice
during the same period to the Commission. In these lines, the appeal is
disposed of.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar)
Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :
1. Mr. Shravan Kumar, Sr. Conservation Officer & PIO, Archaeological
Survey of India, Office of the Sr. Conservation of India, Konark Sub Circle,
Konark, Distt. Puri, Orissa.
2. Mr. Niranjan Tripathy, AT-Ambiligaon, P.O. Dhantri, Via-Konark, Dist. Puri,
Orissa
2