A.P. INFORMATION COMMISSION (Under Right to Information Act, 2005) D.No. 5-4-399, Samachara Hakku Bhavan (Old ACB Building), ‘4” Storied Commercial Complex, Housing Board Building, Moazzam Jahi Market, Hyderabad-500001, Phone: 040-24740107, 24740109 (f) Appeal Case No.1994/SIC-CMR/2014, Date:- 13-03-2014 Name of the appellant Name of the Respondents : Smt N.Phanisree, D/o. NSV Ratnarao, 13-3-41/1, Devichowk, Samarlakota, East Godvari-533440 : Public Information Officer (U/RTI Act, 2005) O/o the Asst. Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Vijayawada-522001 Appellate Authority (U/RTI Act, 2005) O/o the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, Vijayawada-522001 ORDER 1. Smt N.Phanisree, has filed an appeal dated 18-1-2014 u/s 19(3) of Right to Information Act, 2005, which was received by this Commission on 24-1-2014, against the Public Information Officer and Appellate Authority for non-furnishing of information. 2. According to the appellant she had filed an application dated 27-9-2013 u/s 6(1) of the Act, before the Public Information Officer O/o the Asst. Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Vijayawada. 3. The appellant has sought for the information from the PIO u/s 6(1) as follows: 4. The PIO has not furnished the information to the appellant. 5. Having not received the information from the PIO, the Appellant has made an appeal, on 5-11-2013 u/s 19(1) of the Act, to the 1st Appellate Authority, O/o the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, Vijayawada. As per the provisions u/s 19(6) of the Act, such 1st appeal shall be disposed within (30) days or within such extended period not exceeding (45) days, from the date of receipt of the appeal. While disposing the 1st Appeal, the 1st Appellate Authority is required to give notices to the Public Information Officer / Deemed PIO and to the Appellant, conduct a hearing, just like the A. P. Information Commission conducts the hearings of 2nd Appeals and pass speaking orders and communicate to the PIO, under intimation to the Appellant. Instead, the 1st Appellate Authority has not acted upon the 1st Appeal received by him and there by has shown dereliction to statutory responsibility imposed on him by the Act. This has been noted with much displeasure by the Commission. The Head of the Office / Public Authority is requested to take note of the same and take suitable action as deemed fit, ensuring that such dereliction of statutory duties by the 1st Appellate Authority does not occur. 6. The appellant has filed a Second appeal before the Information Commission under section 19(3) of RTI Act, as the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority have failed to furnish the information as sought for by him, requesting the Commission to arrange to supply the information. 7. After examining the material papers available on record, the appeal was taken on file and notices were sent to the parties concerned, directing them to appear before this Commission for hearing on 12-03-2014. 8. On the date of hearing i.e., on 12-03-2014, Kum. K.Lavanya Lakshmi, ACP, Central Zone, Vijayawada & the PIO is present. The 1st Appellate Authority is absent and requested for exemption and it is granted. The appellant is present. 9. On hearing of the case on 12-03-2014, the Commission made the following observations and passed the orders as follows:In the 2nd appeal submitted by the appellant on 24.1.2014, he has stated that he has submitted an application u/s 6(1) of the Act on 27.9.2013, seeking information i.e. FIR Copy, statements, Postmortem Report, details of enquiry on the complaint dt.19.8.2007 on the death of the father of the appellant. As per the material papers filed, a reply has been received from the 1st Appellate Authority. In the 2nd appeal it is stated that instead of the information for her complaint, the information of counter case is supplied. At the time of hearing the appellant has specifically sought action taken on the complaint given by her on 19.8.2007 and whether FIR was lodged basing on the same and if so to supply the copies of the documents sought. The PIO has informed that the FIR 458/2007 was registered basing on the complaint of one Sri Nutalapati Sravan Kumar. The Commission directs to give information to the appellant on the action taken on her complaint dt.19.8.2007 along with the connected documents in (7) days, free of cost, by RPAD and under intimation to the Commission. C. Madhukar Raj, State Information Commissioner. Authenticated by: (V. SankaraNarayana) Asst. Registrar Copy to: - The SO / SF / OC