CIC: Appellant has misled the CIC by averring that he has not received any reply qua the instant RTI Application but he himself has uploaded the reply on the link of the registry of this bench under his signature - Appellant admonished for the conduct
The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 14.07.2020 seeking information on the following four points:
1) “En. No. 210401193030 Shubham Kumar Singh S/o Chandu Lal Maine 16.01.2020 ko apna naam shi karwane ko on line e apply kiya tha Reference no A1119390182 h phir mera naam kyo shi nahi kiya gya.
2) On line admission or e apply k time Maine apne 10th ki marksheet scan bhi kit hi phir mera naam kyo shi nhi kiya gay.
3) Mera naam kab tak theek hoga.
4) Agar mera naam theek kar diya jata h to rti bejne kind jroorat nahi h.”
The CPIO vide online reply dated 21.07.2020, informed to the Appellant as under:
“You have done dual registration in NIOS because off which your e-service request got cancelled, cancel your one registration.”
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.08.2020. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.08.2020, transferred First Appeal to other FAA.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that he has not received any reply qua the instant RTI Application from the Respondent. He further stated that Mr. Shubham Singh on behalf of whom he has filed the instant RTI Application is his cousin brother.
The Commission interjected and remarked the Appellant that an online reply dated 21.07.2020, has been provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application which the Appellant has himself uploaded on the link of the registry of this bench under his signature to which the Appellant could not provide a cogent reply.
The Respondent submitted that adequate reply has been provided to the Appellant vide online reply dated 21.07.2020. He further advises the Appellant to provide a written request to the Director, SSS, NIOS, for rectification of name.
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that adequate reply has been provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application. Hence the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter
Be that as it may, the Commission observes that the Appellant has mislead the Commission by averring that he has not received any reply qua the instant RTI Application from the Respondent but on the contrary he himself has uploaded the reply dated 21.07.2020 on the link of the registry of this bench under his signature. The Commission expresses severe displeasure against the conduct of the Appellant and accordingly admonishes him for the same.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Manoj Kumar v. National Institute of Open Schooling, NOIDA in Second Appeal No. CIC/NIOPS/A/2021/105965, Date of Decision: 17.06.2022