Mr.R Pougajendy vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 31 October, 2011

                             Central Information Commission
                               2nd Floor, Room No. 305 B-Wing,
                                     August Kranti Bhawan
                                      Bhikaji Kama Place
                                           New Delhi
                                                                Case No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000274/SS

        Name of Appellant                        :       Sh. R. Pougajendy
                                                                (The Appellant was not present)



        Name of Respondent                       :       Company Secretary, Puducherry, Agro Service & 
                                                         Industries Corporation Limited, Agro House, 
                                                         Puducherry
                                                          (Represented by Sh. B. R. Balagandlu, 
                                                         Managing Director & Sh. A. Boopathy, 
                                                         PIO )


        The matter was heard on                  :       8.08.2011


                                                     ORDER

  Sh. R. Pougajendy, the Appellant, had filed an RTI application dated 22.06.2009, 
seeking information on 7 points from the Respondent Public Authority.   The PIO has 
replied to the Appellant and provided him point­wise information.  In respect of point no. 
1 and 2, the Appellant was informed  that the requisite information had already been 
furnished vide reply to RTI petitions  dated 3.03.2009, and 27.04.2009 respectively.  The 
FAA,   before   whom   the   Appellant   had   filed   an   appeal   has   vide   his   order   dated 
19.08.2009, found the reply of the PIO to be appropriate. 

The present appeal has been filed before the Commission by the Appellant on the 
grounds that incomplete and misleading information has been provided to him.  

In   a   written   statement   provided   after   the   hearing,   the   FAA   submits   that 
information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application are interrogative in nature, in 
spite   of   which   the   Respondent   have   made   an   attempt   to   provide   information   to   the 
Appellant   as   per   their   reply   and   that   the   information   furnished   by   the   PIO   was 
insufficient.   It is further submitted that the Appellant is an officer in the very same 
organization   and   he   is   in   the   habit   of   raising   administrative   issues   through   his   RTI 
applications.

Having heard the Respondent and perused the relevant documents, including the 
English version of the replies provided by the Respondent the Commission is of the view 
that requisite information has been provided to the Appellant even thought point no. 3 to 
7 are mostly in the nature of queries.  The Commission finds no reason to interfere in the 
replies   of   the   Respondent.   The   Appellant   is   also   advised   that   the   RTI   Act   is   not   a 
grievance redressal mechanism. 

 With these observation the matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.

(Sushma Singh) 
                                                                          Information Commissioner 
31.10.2011

Authenticated true copy

(D. C. Singh)
Dy.Registrar
 Copy to:

1. Sh. R. Pougajendy, 44FF, VII CROSS Tagore Nagar, 
Lawspet, Puducherry­605008

2. The Public Information Officer, Company Secretary, 
Puducherry, Agro Service and Industries Corporation 
Ltd., Agro House, Thattanchavady, Puducherry.

3. The Appellate Authority, Managing Director, Puducherry, 
Agro Service and Industries Corporation Ltd., Agro 
House, Thattanchavady, Puducherry.