UNACHAL PRADESH TNFORMATTON COMMTSSTON, (AprC) ITANAGAR, RUNCHAL PRADESH Appeal U/S 19(3) of RTr Act, 200s vide No. ApIC-108/2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT OF SHRI GOTO ETE, THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Batem Pertin S/O Dongon Pertin Village Kiyit, PO Mebo, PS Pasighat, East Siang, A. Pradesh -VERSUS - The PIO-cum-CJM, Aalo, West Siang District at Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh ResDondent Date of hearino: 04.09.2019, 09.10.2019, 13.11.2019, 18.12.2019 L2.02.2020, 11.03.2020, Lt.06.2020. iudgment/order: 13.08.2020. JUDGMENT/ORDER This is an appeal filed under sub-section (3) of Section-lg of the RTI Act. Brief fact of the case is that the appellant named above Shri Batem Pertin, as a person belonged to the category of below povefty line, on 22.10.2018, filed an RTI application under Form-A along with a xerox copy of his BPL Cedificate before the PIO-cum-CJM, Aalo, West Siang District ai Pasighat, wherein, seeking various information,s regarding appointments, posting, etc, of the employees/officials posted in the Court/Office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge Senior Division, East Siang District, Pasighat. Having not received any response from the said pIO-cum-CJM within the prescribed period of 30 days, he filed the First Appeal under sub- section-(l) of Section-l9 of the RTI Act, 2005, before the First Appellate Authority-cum-Additional District Judge, pasighat on 08.01.2019, seeking for an order directing for furnishing of the information sought. The Additional District Judge East Siang District, Pasighat, whereupon, vide his letter Memo No. ADSJ/Psg/2017-tBl70, dated-08.02.2019, informed the appellant to the effect that he was not the First Appellate Authority and that the First Appellate Authority was the District & Session Judge. Thereafter, the appellant, instead of filing the First Appeal before the District & Session Judge, filed the First Appeal on 29.03.2019 U/S 19(1) of the RTI Act. 2005, before the Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission and the same was not entertained by the Registry of the Commission with an advice to the appellant vide letter dated-07,05.2019, among others, to approach the District & Session Judge as the First Appellate Authority for addressing his grievances. Accordingly, the appellant filed a fresh First Appeal before the District & Session Judge, Tezu, on 14.06.2019. But the appellant, having not received any response from the First Appellate Authority finally filed Second Appeal before this Commission on 15.07.2019 and the Registry, having receipt of it, registered the same, being APIC No.10B/2019, and processed before the Commission for its hearing and disposal. Accordingly, this appeal came up for hearing before the Commission for as many as 8(eight) times until the date of this final judgment/order. During the course of hearing the Commission examined two witnesses namely one Shri Osup Dai and another Smty Omang Siram, Shri Hirendra Kashyap presently posted as the District & Session Judqe, Khonsa, being alleged PIO-cum-CJl4 of East Siang District, Pasighat, on his part also, submitted a written statement in detail in his defence on 30.10.2019, wherein, statjng, inter-alia, that there had been no permanent post of OM being posted at Pasighat and that he being posted as CJlvl of West Siang District, Aalo, was only entrusted for holding circuit court at Pasighat. He has further categorically stated that no any such RTI application dated- 22.10.2018 had ever been filed before him as he was not holding circuit court at Pasighat at that point of time. On the date of final hearing of the appeal on 13,08.2020 appellant himself was also heard and examined in peBon through video conferencing during presence of the respective counsels of the pafties and, thereafter, the both learned counsels of the either side have also been heard. Now, after recording the statements of the available witnesses and also after having considered the statements of the either party including the submissions of the learned counsels of the either side I have drawn the following issues for discussion for arriving at a just decision of this appeal. And, those are as follows: 1. Whether the alleoed PIO-cum-OM had received the RTI application of the apoellant: The appellant in his verbal statement made through video conferencing before the Commission on 13.08.2020 stated that he had sought information in his RTI application only in respect of the offlcials/staffs of the Courvofflce of the CJN'|, Pasighat, but not in respect of those officials/staffs of the office/Court of ClM, Aalo. According to him he personally submitted his RTI application to Shri Osup Dai on 22.10.2018 to be given to the CJl4 and Osup Dai then happened to be Sheristedar of Cjlv| and as well oi DC's office Pasighat. Other than the fact about his personal submission of his RTI application to Shri Osup Dai he has no any further knowledge about his said application and he does not have proof if his said application has been received by the cJM. The above statements of th€ appellant that he had personally submitted his RTI application to Shri Osup Dai is connected with the evidences of Shri Osup Dai who has been examined by the Commission as Witness No.1. It is there in the evidence ot Osup Dai (W1) that on 22.10.2018 he was at DC's Office Pasighat as the Sheristedar of the lYobile Court of ClM, Aalo, which used to function as a lYobile Court in the DCt Court at pasighat and that his signature appearing on the RTI application of Batem pertin makes him believes that he ha; received the RTI application from Batem pertin. Infact, Shri H. Kashyap the alleged PIO, on his part, has no dispute of the fact that he was functioning as a CIM but as a Circuit Court at pasighat. The statement of the aDDellant that he does not have evidence other than his personal submission of his application and so also the statement of Osup Dai (W1) that he does not remember if the CJM was or was not in the f4obile Court at pasiqhat at the time of his receiving the application from Batem pertin are found not controverting or disputing the statement of tvlr. Kashyap (alleged pIO) that no any such RTI application dated-22.10.2018 had ever been filed before him as he was not holding circuit court at paslghat at that point of time. This statement of the alleged plo-cum-Cjlt goes to mean that he did not receive this RTI application of the appellant which is supported by the evidences of Smty Omem Siram who has been examined as Witness No.2 of this appeal. It is there in her evidence that on 22.10.2018 she was workinq as the LDC in the DC's Office, pasighat, and her duty at that time wa; mainly related to trials of cases in the CJl4 Court at pasighat. According to her Shri Osup Dai was then on duel charges as sheristedar of both CJ[4's Court and DC's Court at Pasighat. It is also there in her evidence that while dealing with establishment and correspondence matters she came across some RTI matters for which an RTI file was also opened. The Dak-pad of the CJlvl Court was maintained in a register by the sheristedar from 21.08.2018 to 17.12.2018 which does not contain any such record of receipt of the said RTI application of Shri Batem pertin by her from the Sheristedar and in such absence of which she cannot be said to have received any such application of Batem Pertrn from Shri Osup Dai. She has further stated in her deposition that she did not get the RTI application of Batem pertin anv time on 22.10.2018 to the last date of maintaining the register on 17.12.2018. Witness No.2 while in support of her oral evidence to the said effect produced the Register before the Commission and the same after necessary examination and also after having given opportunity to the counsels of the either party for inspection forthwith returned to her with a direction to produce as and when so required. Such oral and documentarv evidences of the Witness No.2, having not been tn any way disputed oi controverted by any of the parties, remain intact and the same, as such, belie the evidence of the Witness No.l made in his cross-examination that he had given the RTl application of Batem pertin to his assistant (W2) for keeping it in the dak pad to be given to the CJty dunng his visit to the Mobile Court. Having carefully considered the evidences and other available materials on record as discussed aforesaid I do not find anv oral or documentary proof to go to show that the alleged plo had received the RTI application of the appellant and, therefore, I have no escaoe from pIO-cum-CJM concluding that the alleged had not received ihe said application of the appellant, And, accordingly, the alleged plo-cum-CJtvl, who is found to have not received the RTI application of the apoellani cannot be said to have violated sub-section (1) of Section-7 and any other provisions of RTI Act, 2005. This issue, thus, is found going in favour of the alleged PIO. 2. If there had been anv officials/staffs in the CIM Court at Pasiohat about whose information have been souqht in the RTI application of the appellant: The alleged PIO-cum-CJlvl, in paraqraph-6 of his written statement, stated that in East Siang District there was no permanent Cl[4 posted and he was posted as CJlvl of West Siang District and was entrusted to conduct Circuit Court at Pasighat.