[Resolved]  World Abacus Academy — Various Case Like;-BEFORE THE ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION BHUBANESWAR

EFORE THE ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSIONBHUBANESWAR

Present: Shri Jagadananda,
SICDate: 6S January,
2009Complaint Case No. 735/2007
Himansu Ranjan Mohanty,At/PO-Taratua,
Via-Khurda,Khurda district

Complainant-Vrs-Public Information Officer,Office of the Divisional Forest Officer.Nayagarh Forest Division,Nayagarh district Opposite ParlyDecisionComplainant Himansu Ranajn Mohanty is present. K.C. Mishra, PIOand Arun Kumar Patnaik, Senior Clerk, office of the Divisional ForestOfficer, Nayagarh Forest Division, Nayagarh district are also present.Heard. Perused the case record. This case has arisen out of complaintpetition dated 12/09/07.This case was earlier taken up for hearing on27/06/08,13/08/08 and 10/12/08.Complainant had filed form A application dated 13/03/07 before thePIO,office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Nayagarh, Forest Division,for obtaining the copy of the Government order in which theDivisional Forest Officer, Nayagarh Forest Division has been declaredas the appointing and disciplinary authority for the post of V.F.W. asper the provisions of O.C.S/ (C & C.A.) Rules 1962 etc. The case wasfirst heard on 27/06/08 when the PIO has stated that SudhanshuSekhar Mishra was the PIO when the form A application dated
[protected][protected][protected][protected]
Page 2
13/03/07 of the Complainant was processed in the Public Authority.The State Commission had procured the presence of said SudhanshuSekhar Mishra on 10/12/08. He had submitted that the application ofthe Complainant was received by him on 16/03/07 and theComplainant who had expressed his desire to receive the informationin persion was informed to collect the information on 11/04/07. Butthe Complainant did not respond thereto. The PIO clarified that theinformation sought for by the Complainant has been completelyfurnished to him in two slots i.e. on 26/05/07 and 10/07/07.3. On perusal of record and documents filed the Stale Commission isconvinced that the actions of the PIO and the referred PK) appear tobe in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Theclarification sought by the Complainant with regard to the remaininginformation was also clarified and the copy of the relevant documentwas made available during hearing.4. In view of the above when all the required information have beensupplied to the Complainant there no further need to prolong this casewhich is hereby disposed of and closed.Pronounced in open proceedings.Given under the hand and seal of the State Commission, this 6'1' dayof January, 2009.