ANDHRA PRADESH INFORMATION COMMISSION (under the iene to Information Act, 2005) e¥o0r, xan conta Chlemakokant, Mangotagit, Gun = 5225 a sis Ulan Seanaatin alegneo PPEAL No. 18445) pane + Smt. D, Sarada Devi, Head Master, G.H.S. Boys, 8 Camp-518002, Kurhool District. Mobile No, 9492852304, + The Public information Officer, Ofo, the District Educational Officer, Kurnoo!~518002, Kurnool Distrlet. Respondent.t + The First Appellate Authority, Ofo. the District Educational Officer, Kurnool-518002, Kurnool District. 14,03.2023, 21.03.2023, 09.05.2023, 31.05.2023 & 21.06.2023 ORDER da Devi, filed this. present Second Appeal dated 02,41:2022 07.11.2022, U/s.19{3) of the Right to information 2008) for not getting the information as sought bY the Fist Appellate Authority. Respondent.2, Date of Hearing The Appellant, D. Sara which was received by this Commission © ‘Act, 2005 (hereinafter called the RT! Act, hiro from the Public Information Officer an ‘The brief facts of the case as per the Second Appeal and other records received along ‘with it are as follows: ‘The Appeltantfiled an Application dated 10.08.2022 U/s. (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 before the District Educational Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool formation with regard to the action taken details 14 before the Deputy Educational Officer, Kurnool In tudent (HT. No.221102093) by the invigilator. 1 the Public Information Officer, O/0. District, requesting to furnish the pertaining to her complaint file respect of rude behavior on the st 2, The Respondent did not respond to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. ‘ The Appellant filed the First Appeal, dated 22.09.2022 before the First Appellate ‘Authority, 0/o. the District Educational Officer, Kurmoo}, Kurnool District, U/s. 19(1) of the RT! Act, 2005 as he did not recélve any response from the 1" Respondent. 4. The 2 Respondent also dd not respond to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTIAct, 2005. 5. Agatieved by the non-iesponse from both the Respondents, the Appellant filed this present Second Appes! dated:02.11.2022 before this Commission ¥/s. 19(3) of the ATI Act, 2005. eee qe END ion considered the contents of the Appeal arid took this Appeal into age” B.bognizance based on the records available with the Commission and issued notices 0 the Appellant and both the Respondents directing them to participate in ‘the personal hearing on 14,03,2023. Contd., 2,10. we 2 BB. 14: 16. Hall cir wtten affidavits win, alt inder both the Respondents were specticalty girected '° oneal recolved by them © the it fegatd to the action taken on the Application / Ft ATIAet, 2005, jecegillomed ugh register assent thro! The Appellant was specifically askeu through anole which nich OS filed Ufs posto submit pantse unanswered nes ofS PTSPPOT gouge issue bythe {6{1) of the RTI Act 2005 before the Pubic information offte Commission through the Respondents, da Devi, the Appellant, The Appeal was called for a hearing on 14.03.2023. 5M" os ee Be was absent from the personal hearing, but filed 2 letter ved information from the Commission and requested to arrange to provide the request nal Ofer, nespondents Sel P, Samecr, the Junior gsitant 010-4 OB acing on gurndol, Kurnool Distt, has attended and participated I Y behalf of both the 1 & 2" Respondents on the authorization- .d about the facts of the he course of ission aske During the course of the hearing, when the com! toe ge nasponders case, the authorized person who attended an behalf of both th informed the Commission that he s not aware ofthe facts of the case inthe above circumstances, the Commision adjourned the case and reposted the same on 21.03.2023 for its disposal. ‘The Appeal was called for a personal edring on 21.03.2023. Smt. D. Sarada Devi, the ‘Appellant, was absent from the pefsonal hearing. Both the 1 & 2% Respondents are absent from the personal hearing, but the 2" Respondent filed the letter dated 20.03.2023 through the mail to the Corfimission and requested to adjourn the case as they can’t attend before the Commission since they had to conduct SSC Examinations. ‘The Commission accepted the réquest ‘of the 2" Respondent and adjourned the case, and reposted the same on 09.05.2023 for its disposal. The Appeal was called for a personal hearing on 09.05.2023, Smt. D. Sarada Devi, the Appellant, was agath absent from the péisonal hearing. Both the 1° & 2" Respondents were also again absent from the personal hearing, but the 2" Respondent filed the letter dated 20.03.2023 through the mail to the Commission and requested to adjourn the case as they can't attend before the Commission since they had to conduct SSC Examinations. ‘The Commission accepted the request of the 2" Respondent and adjourned the case, and reposted the same on 31.05.2023 forits disposal. ‘The Appeal was called for a personal hearing on 31.05.2023. Smt. D. Sarada Devi, the ‘Appellant, was once agaln absent from the personal hearing, Both the Respondents were also once again absent from the personal hearing, but the 2" Respondent filed the letter dated 26.05.2023 and requested the Commission to adjourn the case as they could not attend the hearing since they had to attend the CM Programme.st 18. 19. 20. 2. R B. mA. Ma rgston A€coptad the request of the 24 fespandlent and \m o's FeMosted for a persanal hearing on 24.06;2023 at Anvfight of the above, the Com adjourned the case, and the sam 10,30 AM for ls dlspasel ‘Tho Appeal is called for a hea in on TE Smt. 0. Sarada Devi, the Appeltant, is again absent from the personal best 11, Samuel Paul, the Assistant Directory fo. the District educational officers ae Kurnool district, who Is the 1 Respondent, ud srl Ve Range Fe fy, the steel Educational Offenr, fo, the istrict Educational ol istelcly ho Is the 2" Respondent, have attended and officer, Kurnool, urn personal earings partpate! Inte pearing, th 1" Respondent stated that he had fotood this using eee ee ett, WT the Commision ee ho had 3 a alison rr ro.9n.2022 trough an ensoseert 2% 10.03.2023. A180 ne Informed Ne ‘commission that the 2°4 Respondent had responded ‘he AT ‘application 2! 40.08.2022 and Informed thot the action had not beer oe Fmplnt from the student, Final, RE requested the sand appeals he had responded 20 (he Appellant. 4 Respondent stated that he had joined this sion that he had the action had not he requested the of the hearing, the 2 vurther, he informed the Commis: ited 10.08.2022 and informed that mo comotat for the student. Finally, the second Appeal ase nad responded. the 2° Respondent submitte stent and a,copy of the recelPt dt dispose ofthe Second AP ‘peen initl Commission to close urge of the hearin ja copy of the realy ent to the Appel ‘ofthe registered Post ton for perusal a uring the. cot dated 19.06.2023 5 ‘pefore the Commiss pel. e unanswered items by the i his affidavit with regard to the 1g before the fication U/s.6(1) nor attended’ for hearin to substantiate is stand f obtain the information in spite jven bythe Commission, which indicates that the Appellant Is satisflad with the information jurnished by the Respondents on +10,03.2023 from the 1 respondent and 19.06.2023 fom the 224 Respondent. Had the Appellant attended the hearing, the Commission might have resolved tne unanswered ius, if ns by giving direction to the Respondents. {he Appellant netther fle ‘on his appl com of the specific directions per the argurtients put plated before the Commission and as g,Itis observed ‘asseen from the retords {forth by both the partlesbefarethe Commission at he time of the hearin thotthe "and 2" Respondentshad responded ar informed the factual situation with regerd to the complaint submitted by the Appellant before the District Educational ticer, Kurnool on two (2) clfferent spells. ‘The 2° Respondents hereby specifically informed to make a note that its mandatory con the part of the First Appellant Authority tO conduct a hearing by calling both the “Appellant andthe Public Information Ofizr and to Pass adjudication orders as per the provisions of the Act without any deviation In future wwhile dealing with the First Appeal u/s. 19(1). Contd, 425. 26. 27. 28. iy, Yall ‘ The Commission is of the opinion that if the 2"! Respondent discharged his mandatory obligation in disposing of the First Appeal u/s- 19(2) of the RTI Act,2005, the Apeetiont would not have approached the Commissjan for filing 20) Appeal U/S- 3913) of the RT ‘Act, 2005, which would have saved the resources of the Public Information Officer. and the State Information Commission, the Commission is of the opinion that there fs No need to give any ishing the information to the Appellant Appellant and Informed the factual itted by both the In light of the above, directions to either of the Respondents in furnl as both the Respondents had responded, to the situation which is evident through the copies of the documents submit Respondents before the Commission at the time of the hearing. more cautious in the future while The Commission directs both the Respondents to be dealing with the Applications received U/s. 6(1) and: First Appeals U/s. 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, in furnishing the information and in disposing of the First Appeal, respectively. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. sd. /- REPALA SRINIVASA RAO STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER