PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 039
(Constituted under Section 15 of the Right to Information Act, 2005)
Tel: 0471 2335199, Fax: 0471 2330920
Email:
Present:
P.N. Vijayakumar, Honourable State Information Commissioner
Shri. Rajeesh Kumar. K.P.V
Karanthad P.O.
Ramanthali (Via)Requester
Kannur – 670 308.
Vs
Public Information Officer
O/o. Executive Engineer
P.W.D (Bridges Division) Respondent
Kannur.
ORDER
CP No. 607(4)/2008/SIC was a complaint entertained under section 18 of the Right to Information Act. The requester in this case was one Shri. Rajeesh Kumar K.P.V. The allegations in the complaint was that, he had preferred a request under section 6 of the Right to Information Act before the Executive Engineer, P.W.D (Bridges Division), Kannur on 24.1.2008. No reply had been received so far and hence the complaint. Copy of the request dated 24.1.2008 was also enclosed along with the complaint.
On 26.5.2008, the Public Information Officer, Office of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D (Roads & Bridges) was asked to dispose off the request within 10 days and report compliance. Accordingly, on 30.5.2008, the Public Information Officer and Executive Engineer had reported that thorough search had been made and no such request from the requester had been received and therefore, the furnishing of the reply was rendered impossible. As a matter of abundant caution, a letter was also sent to Shri. Rajeesh Kumar K.P.V asking him to provide a copy of the request for furnishing the information. But the same had not been responded.
The question that arises for consideration is whether, there was a proper request received by the Public Information Officer?
Today, when the case was taken up for hearing, the requester Shri. Rajeesh Kumar K.P.V was absent in spite of notice. No request or communication was seen received from him asking for adjournment. Smt. T.J. Mery, Assistant Executive Engineer in charge of Executive Engineer was present and had preferred an affidavit. In the affidavit, it was stated that, no request for information had been received from the requester. Attempts were also made to locate whether such a request had been received in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer (Bridges) and there was no such communication in the said office also. Since, this was a case wherein, no formal request under section 6 was received by the Public Information Officer, the Public Information Officer was not under an obligation to furnish the information. I have no reason to disbelieve the contents of the affidavit preferred by Smt. T.J. Mery.
With this observation, the complaint is thereforedismissed.
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008.
Sd/-
P.N. Vijayakumar
State Information Commissioner
Authenticated copy
Secretary to Commission
ms
1