CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ROOM NO. 329, SECOND FLOOR, C-WING
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
Tel. No. 91-11-26717356

F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/000668-YA

Date of Hearing                                                : 06.08.2014
Date of Decision                                               : 06.08.2014

Appellant :                                                         Shri V. Ayyappan,Bangalore

Respondent                                                       : Shri T.Bairavaswamy,SP/PIO UT of Pondicherry,Puducherry

Information Commissioner                         : Shri Yashovardhan Azad

Relevant fact rising from appeal:

RTI Application filed on                                 : 25.09.2012
PIO replied on                                                   : 24.10.2012
First Appeal filed on                                        : 02.11.2012
First Appellate Authority (FAA) sequence on : 13.12.2012
Second Appeal perceived on                         : 13.02.2013

 

Information sought:

 

Appellant sought a duplicate of a complaint, filed opposite him by his mother in a Police hire during Puducherry with a duplicate of enquiry news and copies of a statements given by a appellant and Smt. S.P. Nivedha.

Relevant contribution rising during hearing:

Both a parties are present. Appellant filed an RTI focus on 25.09.2012 seeking duplicate of a complaint, filed opposite him by his mother in a Police hire during Puducherry with a duplicate of enquiry news and copies of a statements given by a appellant and Smt. S.P. Nivedha. PIO on 24.10.2012 refused to give information saying therein that a information could not be supposing underneath a supplies of Sec 8(1)(g) of a RTI Act as avowal of a same might discredit a life or earthy reserve of a appellant’s mother who resides in Puducherry. The First Appellate Authority vide his sequence antiquated 13.12.2012 destined a PIO to allow a duplicate of a matter given by a appellant, if recorded, unless a matter was compulsory for any rapist case. Appellant settled that he wanted copies of matter by his mother and a enquiry news in tie with a upkeep box going on in a polite court. He also settled that his mother had filed another censure opposite him in Dindigul (Tamil Nadu), duplicate of that was done accessible to him by his RTI application.

Respondent settled that on 11.07.2012 a censure was lodged by a appellant’s mother opposite a appellant and his relatives per dowry harassment, reserve and security.The appellant was called for exploration during that both a parties concluded on 28.07.2012 by sealed statements, to settle a emanate by coming a family court. Subsequently, a appellant asked for duplicate of wife’s censure and a exploration news that was denied to him by invoking grant underneath territory 8 (1) (g) of a RTI Act.

Decision:

It is transparent from examination of annals and a statements by a appellant and a respondent during a conference that a appellant and his mother are intent in a sour marital brawl and upkeep box in this courtesy is ongoing in a polite court. Appellant’s mother filed complaints opposite a appellant in not one though dual military stations. The Puducherry military has refused to give a duplicate of a censure by a appellants mother and exploration report, on drift of earthy safety, by invoking grant underneath territory 8(1) (g) of a RTI Act. The respondent was not means to explain as to how a earthy risk to a wife’s reserve is extended by a appellant meaningful a essence of her complaint, given a piece of her charges is already famous by a essence of a censure filed in another military hire done accessible to him by another RTI Application. Since a exploration by Puducherry Police is over and a Complainant is signatory to a minute by a both parties for coming a family court, due to that exploration was closed- clearly strengthens his explain to get a duplicate of a documents. The exploration is also not compulsory in other cases.

The appellant has settled that he needs a papers for his defence/strengthening his box in a upkeep fit filed in a polite court. Besides, a appellant has not asked for any personal sum of his mother though usually a essence of papers relating to a charges opposite him.

In perspective of above, the Commission does not accept a drift taken by a respondents for rejection of information underneath Section 8(1) (g) of a RTI Act. The Commission leads a respondents to yield a information sought in a RTI focus to appellant, within dual weeks of a receipt of this order, underneath sign to a Commission.

The interest is likely of accordingly.

(Yashovardhan Azad)
Information Commissioner

Authenticated loyal copy. Additional copies of orders shall be granted opposite focus and remuneration of a charges prescribed underneath a Act to a CPIO of this Commission.

(Tarun Kumar)
Joint Secretary Additional Registrar