CIC: The FAA should have examined the contents of the first appeal and realised that the reply of the PIO was not received by the appellant - CIC: The IPO was not addressed in the name of the Accounts officer as prescribed under the RTI Rules; No relief
The appellant sought a copy of the rules related to the appointment of Principal as the Secretary of School Management Committee.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he had not received any reply till date. The CPIO submitted that an apt reply was sent to the appellant vide letter dated 13.04.2018 requesting him to send the IPO in the name of the Secretary CBSE instead of PIO as there is no account in the name of PIO. She further submitted the speed post receipt details as ED818411286IN.
The appellant submitted that had he received the above reply, he would not have filed the first appeal on 14.05.2018.
The CPIO submitted that the first appeal was not registered as valid RTI fee was not received.
Based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that the FAA erred in keeping the first appeal pending. The FAA should have examined the contents of the first appeal and realised that the reply of the CPIO was not received by the appellant. The appellant has not addressed the IPO in the name of the Accounts officer as prescribed under the RTI Rules, hence, relief cannot be given to him.
In view of the above delay, the CPIO is advised to ensure that complete information is sent to the appellant within 7 days of the receipt of the IPO subject to submission of correct IPO by the appellant. The appellant shall send a correct IPO to the CPIO within 3 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Citation: Praveen Mehan v. Central Board of Secondary Education in Decision no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2018/152423/02691, Date of Decision: 22/01/2020