KIC 2892 PTN 2013 Cw KIC 2897 PTN 2013 INFORMATION COMMISSION, COURT HALL No.6 No.14/3, First Floor, Sri Aravind Bhavan [Mythic Society], Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore 560 001. Commission Website address http://www.kic.gov.in

[Sri Gurusiddappa and Sri G. G. Ainapurmath vs. Secretary/PDO & PIO, Grama Panchayath Rayanal, Hubli Taluk, District] O R D E R 27.06.2013

1. Since two Petitioners’ sought information is on the same subject and Respondents are same, hence both complaints are clubbed together and heard. 2. Petitioner is absent. Sri A. C. Chadragiri, Secretary & PIO, Grama Panchayath Rayanal, Hubli Taluk, is present along with Smt. Ansuya Sunkad, PDO. 3. Petitioners’ in his two requests for information dated 20.12.2012 & 26.10.2012 addressed to Secretary/PDO & PIO, Grama Panchayath Rayanal, Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District, has sought the following information: [2892] UÀAVªÁ¼À UÁæªÀÄzÀ j ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA 01/243J gÀ°è 63 ¥ÁèlÄUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ [2897] Regarding 4(1)(a) & 4(1)(b) 4. Petitioners have filed complaints to the Commission u/s 18(1) of the Act on 22.02.2013 & 25.02.2012, alleging that they have not received the information by the PIO for both applications. Subsequently, the Commission issued summons to all Parties to appear before the Commission on 27.06.2013 at 11.00 A.M. 5. Respondent Sri A. C. Chadragiri, Secretary & PIO states that, he is I/C of three Grama Panchayaths, hence because of the overload of the work he could not provided the information in time to the Petitioners and provided the information to the Petitioners on 27.06.2013, through RPAD and produced the copy of the Postal Acknowledgement for having sent the information. 6. One more copy of the information is handed over to the Commission for both applications. 7. Commission noted that, since Petitioners have approached the Commission u/s 18(1) of the act and sought information 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. 10787-10788/2011 arised out of S. L. P. (c) No. 32768-32769/2010, if the complainant desires to seek any information, he has to prefer an appeal. In the complaint filed under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, such a direction cannot be issued as the nature of power under Section-18 is supervisory in character whereas, the procedure under Section-19 is an Appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the Statute, Viz., by following the procedure under Section -19.

8. Both complaints are disposed of with a liberty to approach the First Appellate Authority under Section -19(1) of the RTI Act. The appellate authority may consider the said appeal without insisting on the period of limitation, if filed within 30 days. 9. Dictated, draft corrected, signed and pronounced in the open Court, this 27th day of June 2013.

(DR. SHEKHAR D. SAJJANAR) STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Addresses of parties:

KIC 2892 PTN 2013 Cw KIC 2897 PTN KIC 2892 PTN 2013 Cw KIC 2897 PTN 2013 2013 Sri Gurusiddappa M. Belagali. Sri A. C. Chadragiri. At: Gangival, Post: Rayanal, Secretary & PIO/ Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District. Smt. Ansuya Sunkad, Grama Panchayath Rayanal, Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District. KIC 2892 PTN 2013 Cw KIC 2897 PTN 2013 Sri G. G Ainapuramath. At: Gangival, Post: Rayanal, Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District.

(i) Public Information Officer must mention his full name, address and telephone number in all communications concerning RTI. (ii) All parties must mention the case number in all communications relating to this case, whether addressed to the Commission or other persons.