KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION Website : www.kic.gov.in (Cour Halt No.3) # 336,2^" Gate,3'o Floor, M.S. Building, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru-1 Complainant : Shri. Nagappa Sanakusa Moger. Public Authority : PIO, District Social Welfare Officer, District Social Welfare Deot. Karwar. Uttara Kannada District. ORDER Date : 3.8.2016 KIC 1067 COM 2015 l. Complainant is absent. Representative ofthe Respondent is present. 2. The complainant in his request for information dated 2.12.2013, has sought the following information: . dd4 dod d)g) dJ[$oDddd zslgd iozroddsJ gidr-cro JdfiSdJo dogeo:J cJJscvJ-T:\:r rr.c^JJ.c.r+-\^ \:E.5 e << J?r. g5o_n ^i .^] do5o$!C)o$e- ^<-.\^:\<, id4 6idJ d)$ d?g AoOo dO dd)Ja6od add ioda$d dro6 (Jde8 dodaAdrdd. €s-ode. :. The Complainant filed Complaint to the Commission under section l8(1) of the RTI Act, on 16.05.2015, requesting the Commission to direct the Respondent to furnish the correct information sought by him. 4. Commission issued summons on 20.6.2016. Complainant is seeking the information to change the caste from Hindu Mogavera to Mogera which comes under the category of Scheduled Caste. 6. Representative of the Respondent informs the Commission that in respect of Hindu Mogavera and Hindu Mogera, the case is pending with the Supreme Court of India in SPL (Civil) No.36462 of 2011 and therefore the information could not be provided. Accordingly an endorsement has been given to the appellant. 7. As per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner V/S State of Manipur and another, bearing Civil Appeals No.10787-10788/2011 arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.32768-3276912010, if the complainant desires to seek any information, he has to prefer an appeal. In the complaint filed under section -18(l) of the RTI Act, 2005, such a direction cannot be issued as the nature ofpower 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 to provide the information which he has.sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, viz., by procedure under section- I 9. ,/. /t) 2 -z- In this case, the complainant has approached this Commission directly by way of complaint under section 18(1) ofthe RTI Act, 2005 seeking a direction to the PIO to fumish information. But, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above, since the Commission has no power to issue such direction, the complaint is disposed of with a liberty to the complainant to approach the First Appellate Authority under section-f9(f) of the RTI Act. The appellate authority may consider the said appeal without insisting on the period of limitation, if filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. 9. Dictated, draft corrected, signed and pronounced in the open court. this 3'd day of, August 2016. (SHA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Addresses o KIC 1067 COM 2015 Krc 1067 coM 2015 Public Information Offi cer, Sri. Nagappa Sanakusa Moger, District Social Welfare Officer, District Sri Gurukrupa, Mathadahitlu, Kaikini, Social Welfare Dept, Karwar, Uttara Bhatkal Tq. Uttara kannada-5 8 1421 . Kannada District-58 1 30 1 Prblc must mention his fullname. address aM lebDnone nuDber in (ii) Allpa.lies mnsr Denlion the case mmber itr all communrcations relating 10 lhis case, whether addressed to rhe Commission orolher persons.