TELANGANA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION (Under Right to Information Act, 2005) Samachara Hakku Bhavan, D.No.5-4-399, ‘4’ Storied Commercial Complex, Housing Board Building, Mojam Jahi Market, Hyderabad – 500 001. Phone Nos: 040-24740107 (o); 040-24740592(f) Appeal No.1932/CIC-(peshi-2)/2018 Dated:05-02-2019 Appellant : Smt :Sridevi Chavva, Secunderabad. Respondent : The :Public Information Officer (U/RTI Act,2005) / O/o The Divisional Engineer(Operations), TSSPDCL, Sainikpuri Division, 33/11KV Sub-Station near ZTS, opp.”Eveready Batteries”, Moula-Ali, Hyderabad-500040. The First Appellate Authority (U/RTI Act, 2005) / O/o The Director(Project & Commercila), TSSPDCL, 6-1-50, Corporate Office, Hyderabad 500063. O R D E R 1. Smt Sridevi Chavva, R/o Secunderabad, filed 2nd appeal dated 02-02-2018 which was received by this Commission on 02-02-2018 for not getting the information sought by him from the PIO / O/o The Divisional Engineer(Operations),TSSPDCL, Sainikpuri Division, 33/11KV Sub- Station near ZTS, opp.”Eveready Batteries”, Moula-Ali, Hyderabad-500040.and 1st Appellate Authority / O/o The Director(Project & Commercila),TSSPDCL, 6-1-50, Corporate Office, Hyderabad 500063. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the appeal and other records received along with it are that the appellant herein filed an application dated 24-06-2017 before the PIO requesting to furnish the information under Sec.6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, on the following points mentioned in his application: 3. The Public Information Officer through letter No.DEE/OP/SKP/F.No.RTI Act/D.No.913 dated 22.07.2017 informed the appellant that the AE/OP/Yapral requested 45 days time for tracing out the documents and as such soon of locating the file the sought information will be furnished to him. 4. Since the appellant did not receive the information from the Public Information Officer, he filed 1st appeal dated 09-08-2017 before the 1st Appellate Authority requesting him to furnish the information sought by him u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. 5. The 1st Appellate Authority through Notice No.Dir/Comml. /PRO/Cse No.40/2017 D.No.354/2017 dated 17.08.2017 directed the Public Information Officer to provide suitable reply/information to the appellant immediately. The Public Information Officer, DE, Opn., Sainikpuri under copy to the appellant through letter No. Lr.No.DEE/OP/SKP/AET/F.No.1456/17 dated 27.09.2017 informed the DE, Operation, Keesara that the RTI Application of the appellant is under correspondence and transferred the file to DE, OPN. Keesara for further necessary action. 6. As the appellant did not get the information from the Public Information Officer / 1st Appellate Authority even after 30 days of filing his 1st appeal, he preferred this 2nd appeal before this Commission requesting to take action against the PIO and 1st Appellate Authority for not furnishing information sought by him and also to arrange to furnish the information sought by him u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. The 2nd appeal was taken on file and notices were issued to both the parties for hearing on 05-02-2019. On 05-02-2019 the case is called. The appellant and the Public Information Officer, DE. TSSPDCL, Sainikpuri Division is present. The appellant submitted that she did not receive the sought information from the PIO. She also submitted that her father is an Ex-Servicemen and Senior Citizen. She further submitted that he received five Acres of Government land. She also submitted that her brother was brutally murdered. She further submitted that their Watchman fabricated false Sale Deed and grabbed the land by forging the signature of her father. She also submitted that she requested the PIO / DE, TSSPDCL, Sainikpuri Division to furnish all the papers submitted for getting electrical meter connection with the above plot. The Public Information Officer submitted that the file relating to the information sought by the appellant was lost while shifting the office from Yapral to New Balajinagar due to bifurcation. It is seen from the record that in the letter D.No.734/17 dt.10.08.2017, the Assistant Engineer, Yapral requested the SHO, Jawaharnagar, Police Station, “Recently we tried to search the documents as per the request made by the Sri Nakuludu under RTI but couldn’t find those documents. Probably documents might have misplaced during the transportation. Hence we request your good selves to conduct enquiry into the matter.” Thereafter, the Inspector of Police, Jawaharnagar issued certificate dated 22.08.2017 to the effect. “On receipt of complaint efforts were made to trace out the missing certificates, but could not be traced.” Perused the records and heard both sides. There is no justification in the argument that the file might have been lost in bifurcation. The main purpose of bifurcation of any office into smaller administrative units is only for better administration. It is the contention of the Appellant that the said file is an important evidence to decide the culpability in a Criminal case. The Commission observed that after the certificate issued by the Police that the file could not be traced, no administrative action was taken on the concerned for misplacement of file. In the above context it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India Vs. Vishwas Bhamburkar in WP No.3660 of 2012 wherein the Court held: “Where it is found that the desired information though available in the record of the Government at some point of time, cannot be traced despite best efforts made in this regard, the department concerned must necessarily fix the responsibility for the loss of the record and take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for loss of the record. Unless such a course of action is adopted, it would be possible for any department/office, to deny the information which otherwise is not exempted from disclosure, wherever the said department/office finds it inconvenient to bring such information into public domain, and in turn, would necessarily defeat the very objective behind enactment of the Right to Information Act. A public authority has a duty to initiate action for this kind of loss of public record, in the form of ‘not traceable’ or ‘missing’. The Public Authority also has a duty to designate an officer as Records Officer and protect the records. A thorough search for the file, inquiry to find out public servant responsible, disciplinary action, reconstruction of alternative file, relief to the person affected by the loss of file are the basic actions the Public Authority is legitimately expected to perform.” Keeping in view of the above observations of the Delhi High Court this Commission directs the Public Information Officer to initiate action to fix up responsibility for the misplacement of file within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order and submit compliance to the Commission. The Commission also directs the PIO to furnish copy of Police Certificate dated 22.08.2017 issued by the Inspector of Police, Jawaharnagar to the appellant forthwith and submit copy of acknowledgement to this Commission. With the above direction, the appeal is closed. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chairman & Managing Director (by name) TSSPDCL for initiating necessary action in the matter. Dr. Raja Sadaram Soma Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated by: Assistant Registrar Copy to: IT Section/SF Copy to Sri. G. Raghuma Reddy, Chairman & Managing Director, TSSPDCL, Central Secretariat, Mint Compound, Khairtabad, Hyderabad-500063..