CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/002953-YA Date of Hearing : 30.01.2015 Date of Decision : 30.01.2015 Appellant : Shri M. Danasegar, Puducherry Respondent : Dr. Sunderraj, PIO Shri Banu, Supdt. Maternity Wing Rajiv Gandhi Government Women & Children Hospital Puducherry Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad : : : : : 22.10.2012 26.12.2012 17.12.2012 No order passed 19.11.2013 Relevant facts emerging from appeal: RTI application filed on PIO replied on First Appeal filed on First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on Second Appeal received on Information sought: Appellant sought copy of certain documents after their inspection. Relevant facts emerging during hearing: Both the parties are present and heard through video conference. Appellant sought the above information by filing an RTI application dated 22.10.2012. Having received no reply from the PIO in the prescribed period, the appellant filed first appeal before the FAA. PIO vide letter dated 26.12.2012 returned the first appeal of the appellant since he had not remitted an amount of Rs.50 towards fee of the first appeal. Being aggrieved by the reply of the public authority, the appellant filed second appeal before the Commission. The first appellate authority vide its written submission dated 28.01.2015 contented that information was provided to the appellant within prescribed time of 30 days vide letter dated 21.11.2012 and the appellant’s first appeal was returned since as per Pondicherry Right to Information Rules, 2006, there is a provision for payment of Rs.50 during submission of first appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 subsequently the payment of Rs.50 was deleted during 2008 vide Puducherry Right to Information (Amendment) Rules, 2008. During disposal of appeal dated 17.12.2012, the said amendment order has not been received in their office and hence the said appeal was returned by the former FAA vide letter dated 26.12.2012. Appellant submitted that the complete information has not been provided as on today i.e. copy of his own ACR and information on point No.7 and 8 of the RTI application. PIO submitted that his predecessor and then PIO denied the information to the appellant and he has now no objection to provide the copy of ACR to the appellant. Decision: After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, the Commission directs the respondent to provide copy of the ACR to the appellant and re-visit the RTI application of the appellant and provide whatever information which was not provided to him earlier as per the provisions of the RTI Act within two weeks of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission. (B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar