SIC-K/SA/33/2012/233 - State Information Commission
SIC-K/SA/33/2012/233 - State Information Commission SIC-K/SA/33/2012/233 - State Information Commission
Not being satisfied with the adjudication of the FAA, he preferred a second appeal before this Commission which was received in the Commission on 25.07.2012. As this appeal was deficient in number of respects, the Commission’s Registry issued a deficiency notice on 26.07.2012 to the appellant to remove deficiencies. In response, the requisite documents were submitted by the appellant which were received in the Commission on 08.08.2012. These were examined and the appeal was admitted to be heard on 18.10.2012. The case was accordingly heard on 08.10.2012. It was noted that in the 2 nd appeal the appellant has not substantiated how the information given by the PIO was incorrect and therefore, the appellant was given a chance to substantiate the incorrectness in the information. As the reply/counter statement were yet to be responded by both the parties and also in view of the holidays on account of Idd, Dushhera etc. the time limit for disposal of appeal was extended initially by 20 days beyond the time limit of 60 days. Thereafter, the case was again listed on 23.11.2012. However, both the parties did not attend the hearing due to traffic restrictions and also the rejoinder of the respondent was yet to be responded by FAA/PIO. Accordingly time limit was further extended upto 20 th of December 2012. After going through the rejoinder furnished by the appellant and PIO it was felt that some issues relating to the exact nature of information and interpretation of the information as contained in Section 2 of the RTI Act is involved in said appeal. Therefore, the Information Commissioner Kashmir who was hearing the appeal recommended to the Chief Information Commissioner to constitute a larger bench to decide the issues emanating from the 2 nd appeal and examine the arguments and submissions made by both the parties. Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner gave his consent on phone for constitution of such Division bench. The date for hearing in the Division Bench was communicated to both the parties vide Commission’s notice dated 23.11.2012. FAA/PIO and other representatives of Kashmir University duly attended the hearing. However, the appellant attended proceedings late and submitted that he did not receive Commission’s notice dated 23.11.2012 and he was informed on telephone No. 9622403288 today only and hence delay for his appearance before the Commission. The larger bench accordingly heard both the parties. The Commission perused all the documents of the appellant and PIO on record and also heard the arguments of FAA/PIO. Close scrutiny and perusal of the 2 nd appeal filed in the Commission on 25.07.2012 which is enclosed with this order (Annexure-I) makes it quite clear that the appellant had not made any specific grounds of appeal because he had not mentioned what he meant by “not providing 2
complete information” and had requested the Commission to direct the PIO to “provide complete information”, without elaborating what he meant by complete information. However, keeping in view the objects and spirit of the RTI Act, for bringing transparency, the Commission admitted this so-called appeal. During the subsequent hearing the Commission directed the appellant to substantiate his argument which he has done vide letter dated 25.10.2012 received in the Commission on 08.11.2012 are as under:- 1. Q (IX) and Q (XIII) to Q (XIX) have been replied in 3 contradictory averments. As per RTI application in Q (IX) the appellant has asked to give reasons for leveling false and unethical allegations against Sh. Aarif Hussain Shah and give enquiry report (whether these allegations have been made). any. This has been responded to by the PIO by asking the applicant to submit the proof, if “what” etc. In Q (XIII) to (XIX) the RTI applicant has asked certain questions as to “why”, “who” and Q (XIII) has been responded by PIO stating that two enquiries at the Institutional level involving the applicant are already under process. The applicant has been asked to provide proof in this regard to the relevant committee. Q (XIV) to Q (XIX) has been responded by PIO stating that the department and office of the Chief Proctor had amicably settled the issue on 29.04.2011 and both the warring students tendered unconditional apologies in this regard duly signed by their relatives who were also present on the spot. In Q (XI) the appellant has asked to give the list of all the research scholars who have completed or are currently doing M Phil/Phd from the Start of the Department till today including the current batch who have applied to M Phil/Phd mentioning their date of exam/date of joining/registration date of awarding degree, teaching experience. PIO has responded to this query and provided date of joining of all those candidates whose records are available in the Department. Regarding Q (XII) to provide copy of answer sheets to the appellant of all the MSc semesters including the internal assessment, which PIO has not provided to him till date, PIO has submitted that “this is the domain of the Controller of Examinations. However, the continuous 3
- Page 1: File No - SIC-K/SA/33/2012 Decision
- Page 5 and 6: 1. That as per the University statu
Not being satisfied with the adjudication of the FAA, he preferred a second appeal before<br />
this <strong>Commission</strong> which was received in the <strong>Commission</strong> on 25.07.<strong>2012</strong>. As this appeal was<br />
deficient in number of respects, the <strong>Commission</strong>’s Registry issued a deficiency notice on<br />
26.07.<strong>2012</strong> to the appellant to remove deficiencies. In response, the requisite documents were<br />
submitted by the appellant which were received in the <strong>Commission</strong> on 08.08.<strong>2012</strong>. These were<br />
examined and the appeal was admitted to be heard on 18.10.<strong>2012</strong>.<br />
The case was accordingly heard on 08.10.<strong>2012</strong>. It was noted that in the 2 nd appeal the<br />
appellant has not substantiated how the information given by the PIO was incorrect and therefore,<br />
the appellant was given a chance to substantiate the incorrectness in the information. As the<br />
reply/counter statement were yet to be responded by both the parties and also in view of the<br />
holidays on account of Idd, Dushhera etc. the time limit for disposal of appeal was extended<br />
initially by 20 days beyond the time limit of 60 days. Thereafter, the case was again listed on<br />
23.11.<strong>2012</strong>. However, both the parties did not attend the hearing due to traffic restrictions and<br />
also the rejoinder of the respondent was yet to be responded by FAA/PIO. Accordingly time limit<br />
was further extended upto 20 th of December <strong>2012</strong>.<br />
After going through the rejoinder furnished by the appellant and PIO it was felt that some<br />
issues relating to the exact nature of information and interpretation of the information as<br />
contained in Section 2 of the RTI Act is involved in said appeal. Therefore, the <strong>Information</strong><br />
<strong>Commission</strong>er Kashmir who was hearing the appeal recommended to the Chief <strong>Information</strong><br />
<strong>Commission</strong>er to constitute a larger bench to decide the issues emanating from the 2 nd appeal<br />
and examine the arguments and submissions made by both the parties. Hon’ble Chief<br />
<strong>Information</strong> <strong>Commission</strong>er gave his consent on phone for constitution of such Division bench.<br />
The date for hearing in the Division Bench was communicated to both the parties vide<br />
<strong>Commission</strong>’s notice dated 23.11.<strong>2012</strong>. FAA/PIO and other representatives of Kashmir University<br />
duly attended the hearing. However, the appellant attended proceedings late and submitted that<br />
he did not receive <strong>Commission</strong>’s notice dated 23.11.<strong>2012</strong> and he was informed on telephone No.<br />
9622403288 today only and hence delay for his appearance before the <strong>Commission</strong>. The larger<br />
bench accordingly heard both the parties.<br />
The <strong>Commission</strong> perused all the documents of the appellant and PIO on record and also<br />
heard the arguments of FAA/PIO.<br />
Close scrutiny and perusal of the 2 nd appeal filed in the <strong>Commission</strong> on 25.07.<strong>2012</strong> which<br />
is enclosed with this order (Annexure-I) makes it quite clear that the appellant had not made any<br />
specific grounds of appeal because he had not mentioned what he meant by “not providing<br />
2
Change language