KIC 982I PTN 2OI3 INFORMATION COMMISSION. CoURT FIALL No.5 No.l4l3.First Floor. Sri AravindBhavanlMythic Societyl. Nrupatunea Road. Bangalore560 001. Com mission Website add ress http://www. kic.gov.in

ISri Gurubasappavs. HeadMaster & PIO,GHPS School, , Taluk, Districtl ORDER 04.03.20t4

1. Petitioner is absent. Sri Hulagappa,Head Master & plo, GHpS School, Salagunda,Sindhanur Taluk, is present. 2. Petitionerin his requestfor informationdated 30.05.2013addressed to Head Master& PIO, GHPS School,Salagunda, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur District, has sought thefollowing information: oooo elzPdr6 eldlpd Sddd dneo.g aarln edd 3' Petitionerhad filed a complaintto the Commissionu/s l8(1) of the Act on 26'10.2013,alleging that he had not receivedinformation from the PIO. Subsequently, the Commissionissued summons to boththe Partiesto appearbefore the Commissionon 04.03.2014at 11.00 A.M. 4. RespondentHead Master & PIO. GHPS School.Salagunda, Sindhanur Taluk, RaichurDistrict in his letterdated 28.10.2013 to the Petitionerstated that, the sought informationwill be providedafter pa\.ment further fees of Rs.25001-. 5. Commissionnoted that. RespondentHead Master & plo, GHps School, Salagunda.Sindhanur Taluk. Raichur District has requestedthe Pet'itionerto pay further fees,after the lapseof 30 da1's,t.hich is not maintainable. 6. RespondentSri Hulagappa-Head }{aster & PIO. statesthat, he has provided the information to the Petitioner.on 0-1.03.2014free of cosr, through RPAD and produced the copy of the Postal Acknorvledgement for '/. having sent the information. one more copy of the information is handedover to the commission. 8. Commission suggeststhe Petitioner.to approachFAA, if he has not satisfiedwith information,which was alreadyprovided b1 the Respondent. 9. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER v/s STATE OF MANIPUR AND ANOTHER bearing civil Appeals No. 10787-10788/2011arised our of s. L. p. (c) No. 3276g- 3276912010,if the complainant desires to seek any information, he has to prefer an appeal.In the complaint filed under Section l8(l) of the RTI Act, such a direction cannot be issuedas the nature of power under Section-18is supervisory in character whereas,the procedure under Section-l9 is an Appellate procedure and a person who is aggrievedby refusal in receivingthe information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the Statute, Yiz.,, by following the procedureunder Section-19. 10. In this case' the Petitioner has approached this Commission directly by way of complaint seeking a direction to the PIO to furnish information. But, as per the decisionof the I{on'ble Supreme Court referred above,since the Commission has no power to issue such direction to furnish the information or award Compensation, the complaintis disposedof with a li ach the First Appellate Authority -19(l) under Section of the R'tI A uthorify may consider the said appealwithout insistingon the pe bf liiliratio iled within o' 30 days. ls I 1. In light of the above,the Appeal is disposedof. 12. Dictated.draft corrected,signed and pronounced in the openCourt, this 04"' day of March2014.

(DR. SrffiKHAR&=- D. SAJJANAR) STATETNFORIVTATION COMMISSIONER Addressesof parties:

KIC 9821PTN 2013 KIC 9821PTN 2013 SriGurubasappa Bhovr. Sri Hulagappa, Old BhoviGalli, Gulbarga. HeadMaster & PIO, GHPSSchool, Salagunda, SindhanurTaluk. Raichur District.

(i) Public Information Officer must mentionhis full name,address and telephonenumber in all communicationsconcerning RTI. (ii) All parties must mention the casenumber in all communicationsrelating to this case, whether addressedto the Commissionor other persons.