CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal Nos.3102 to 3104/ICPB/2008
F.No. PBC/2008/00187
PBC/07/00500
PBA/2007/01224
November 24, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18/19
[Hearing on 07.11.2008 at 12.00 noon through Video Conferencing between
New Delhi-Puducherry-Yanam]
Appellant: Mr. P. Veerappan
Public authority: Electricity Department
Mr. G. Kaniyamutha, Asst. Engineer & PIO
Mr. T. Anandakrishnan, SE-I & Appellate Authority
Parties Present: For Respondent:
Mr. T. Anandakrishnan, SE-I
Mr. P. Veerappan-Appellant
DECISION
These cases were taken up for hearing through video conferencing on
7.11.2008, which was attended by the SE-I from the Electricity Department from
Puducherry and the appellant attended the hearing from Yanam. After going through
the documents on record and after detailed deliberations during the hearing the appeals
are decided as under:
File No. CIC/PBC/08/00187: In this appeal the appellant has sought information
by his application dated 6.12.2007 seeking information regarding various kind of posts
created, abolished, transferred to other section/office, upgraded and present vacancy
position on various posts in Yanam region Electricity Department. Alleging no response
from the PIO, the appellant filed this complaint before the Commission on 21.1.2008.
Comments were called for from the public authority on 28.3.2008 followed by a
reminder on 7.8.2008. The SE-I/AA has furnished his comments vide letter dated
14.8.2008. In the comments, it has been mentioned that the appellant has been given
reply by the PIO on 6.5.2008 and subsequently the appellant preferred an appeal before
the AA on 16.5.2008. The first AA has given direction to the PIO to furnish the
remaining available information to the appellant. Comments were called for from the
public authority vide letter dated 28.3.2008 followed by a reminder dated 7.8.2008 and
comments have been received from SE-I-cum-First AA on 14.8.2008.
In this case, prima-facie it is found there was lot of delay in giving reply to the
appellant. The appellant has stated during the hearing that an incomplete information
has been given to him only after five months and even after the expiry of seven months
1
he has not received full information. The present first AA who attended the hearing has
explained the matter in detail. He has been arguing that the appellant is seeking
information related to creation of posts which are related to 20 year old records. Still he
averred he has directed two different PIOs. After searching the records, they have
furnished whatever information that is available with them. He has also stated that he
has sought explanation from the concerned PIOs to explain the delay caused in the
furnishing of information. If the collection of information is going to take time the PIO
could have given an interim reply and if the information is voluminous, he should have
citied section 7(9) of RTI Act for not providing the information. Alternatively the PIO
could have given an option to the appellant to seek information for a less period. This
has not been done by the PIO. In these circumstances, the PIO has been directed to
explain why he not followed the time-frame provided under the RTI Act to the
Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this decision. The PIO has also
been directed that he should check-up the records once again for the missing records
and he has to furnish a copy of the rules of retention schedule for destruction of records
to the appellant and wherever they take the stand that the records are not available,
they should file an affidavit before the Commission with a copy to the appellant. This
should be done by the PIO within a period not more than 1 month from the date of
receipt of this decision. In these lines, the appeal is disposed of.
File No. CIC/PBC/07/00500: The appellant has sought information under RTI Act
by his letter dated 13.7.2007 addressed to PIO, Electricity Department, Yanam
requesting to furnish the list of Recruitment Rules available in the UT administration for
various posts in Group A, B, C and D cadres with various details of posts. The PIO vide
letter dated 18.7.2007 has returned the application to the appellant stating that he
should approach the concerned public authority. The appellant again resubmitted the
application on 20.7.2007 drawing the attention of the public authority to the provisions of
section 6(3) of RTI Act. Again the appellant reminded the PIO on 24.8.2007 and the
PIO has replied the appellant on 28.9.2007 stating that his application has been
returned and also indicated no time lapse was involved. Aggrieved by these replies, the
appellant preferred this complaint before the Commission on 22.11.2007. Comments
were called for from the public authority vide letter dated 24.1.2008 and the same has
been received from the Assistant Engineer-cum-PIO by letter dated 12.2.2008. During
the hearing the appellant has contended that the PIO could have very well transferred
the papers under section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the Department of DP & AR, if the
information is not concerning them. The stand taken by the PIO is not correct. In view
of this it has been directed that the PIO should ascertain from the Secretariat and obtain
whatever information that are available and provide it to the appellant within 15 days
from the date of receipt of this decision. The PIO has also been instructed to be very
careful in future while dealing the cases of this nature.
File No.CIC/PBA/2007/1224: The appellant has sought information under RTI
Act by his letter dated 3.7.2007 addressed to the PIO, Electricity Department,
Government of Puducherry, Yanam regarding various information pertaining to
Electricity Department administration. The PIO vide his letter dated 20.7.2007 has
denied the information stating that the particulars sought do not concern to the sub-
office, Electricity Department, Yanam for which he is the designated PIO. Aggrieved by
this decision of the PIO, the appellant preferred first appeal before the first AA on
14.8.2007. The first AA by his letter dated 12.9.2007 has rejected the appeal under
2
section 6(1) and 8(1)(j) of the Act. This has resulted in filing of this appeal before the
Commission on 10.1.2008. Comments were called for from the public authority vide
letter dated 7.12.2007 which have been received from AE-cum-PIO on 24.4.2008.
During the hearing the present AA has explained the matter and he assured that he will
take up the matter with the PIO again and sort out the matter. It is brought to the notice
of the first AA that whatever information that is available like financial power, duties and
responsibilities, number of staff need to be given. It is understood the PIO is a small
functionary at Yanam and the First AA has been instructed that he will be in a better
position to trace all the issues and hence, he has been directed to give only the
minimum information like list of Drawing & Disbursing Officers, officials working at
Yanam, names of the disciplinary authority, powers and duties of Head of Department
whichever is useful and whichever is pertaining to Yanam Region within 15 days from
the date of receipt of this decision. The appellant has been advised to give a copy of
his RTI application to the AA in this respect.
In these lines, all these cases are 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. G. Kaniyamutha, Asst. Engineer & PIO, Electricity Department, Govt. of
Puducherry, Puducherry.
2. Mr. T. Anandakrishnan, SE-I & Appellate Authority, Electricity Department, Govt.
of Puducherry, Puducherry.
3. Mr. P. Verrappan, NO. 6, 132/11, K.V. Sub Station Quarters, Mettacur, Yanam-
533464
3