Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
User Queries
View the actual judgment from court
Central Information Commission
Mr.Kishanlal Mittal vs Central Information Commission on 11 May, 2012
                             CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                 Club Building (Near Post Office)
                               Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                      Tel: +91-11-26161796
                                                                       Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000729/18891
                                                                               Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000729
Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                                :       Mr. Kishanlal Mittal
                                                 1305, Dhruv, Ashok Van,
                                                 Borivali East,
                                                 Mumbai-400066

Respondent                               :       Mr. S. Padmanabha,
                                                 CPIO & Dy. Secretary
                                                 Central Information Commission
                                                 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing,
                                                 August Kranti Bhawan,
                                                 Bhikaji Cama Place,
                                                 New Delhi-110066

RTI application filed on                 :       16/08/2011
PIO replied                              :       15/09/2011
First appeal filed on                    :       22/09/2011
First Appellate Authority order          :       22/12/2011
Second Appeal received on                :       11/01/2012
Sl.                         Information Sought                                          Reply of the PIO
A.    Kindly provide registration # of following 2nd                   Information as per the given format had been
      appeals/complaints u/s 18 & filed with CIC central registry:     furnished to the Appellant.
      (i) Case vs. Railway Board lodged on 0l August, 2011, vs.        However, no information regarding its movement
      Atomic Energy Regulatory Board on 1 August, 11, vs.              from the day it was diarized till it was finally
      MHRO on 01/08/11, vs. CBI on 01/08/11, 2 cases vs.               registered is maintained in the registries as
      Ministry of Finance on 01/08/11, vs. NABARD on 01/08/11,         indicated.

letter to Chief IC on 01/08/11. reg change of commissioner for hearing of case.

B. Kindly provide diary Us of each of the above appeals with Information as per the given format had been details of daily movement from the day it is received and furnished to the Appellant. diarized with noting of each officer through with the file However, no information regarding its movement passes before it is finally registered. from the day it was diarized till it was finally registered is maintained in the registries as indicated.

C. Kindly provide diary numbers of all the cases registered in No such information in this regard is maintained the registries of Smt Deepak Sandhu and Smt. Sushma in this Commission as authenticated by the Singh from l March, 2011 in the format given by the designated officers of the registries of Information Appellant. Commissioner, Smt. Sushma Singh & Information Commissioner, Smt. Deepak Sandhu.

D. Kindly provide list of 2nd appeals/complaints registered as No classifications are made for the senior citizens those of senior citizen in each registry from 1st January, at the level of registration. The information as 2010. Also, as cases of Sr. Citizen qualify for out of turn maintained in the registry of IC (AD) is enclosed. hearing, kindly provide details of cases heard out of turn in However, rest of the registries has stated that no each registry in last 3 years and also provide cases which such information i maintained. Further, it is thus have not been registered as those of senior citizens, in spite not possible to maintain any such record. of request.

Page 1 of 3

E. Kindly provide list of 2 appeals/complaints u/s 18 against The same information has been sought for by you Central Information Commission pending disposal with in your earlier RTI application dated 30.7.2011 CIC. Kindly provide this information with the name of which were disposed off by the Commission vide appellant and the date on which it was registered and likely CPIO letter no. CIC/CPIO/2011/1265 dated date of hearing. Appeals/complaints against CIC also have 2.9.2011. The response in this case also remains priority over other appeals. the same. A copy is enclosed once again. F. Kindly provide information with file notings as to why the The same information has been sought for by you case CIC/SM/A/2011/000118 & CIC/SM/A/2011/000362, in your earlier RTI application dated 30.7.2011 CIC/SM/AJ2011/366, CIC/SM/A/2011/00373 vs. CIC were which were disposed off by the Commission vide heard out of turn when CIC/SM/AJ2011/000164/ CPIO letter no. CIC/CPIO/2011/1265 dated CIC/SM/A/2011/173& CIC/SM/A/2011/ 203 2.9.2011. The response in this case also remains CIC/SM/A/2011/204 of this applicant, being a senior citizen, the same. A copy is enclosed once again. registered prior to the said cases are still pending hearing. Also, CIC/SM/A/2011/355 vs. Election Commission was heard out of turn when the case # CIC/SM/A/2011/000171 of this applicant, being a senior citizen, is pending for hearing.

G. Kindly provide information on the action taken against The same information has been sought for by you officers/staff responsible for delay in registration of appeal # in your earlier RTI application dated 30.7.2011 CIC/SS/A/2011/001108-which was lodged on 24/03/2011 which were disposed off by the Commission vide but registered only on 15/07/2011 & appeal # CPIO letter no. CIC/CPIO/2011/1265 dated CIC/DS/AJ2011/1800 & 1801 lodged on 24/03/2011 but 2.9.2011. The response in this case also remains registered only on 29/07/2011. Kindly also provide reasons the same. A copy is enclosed once again. for delay.

H. Kindly provide information on whether the following No classifications are made for the senior citizens appeals/complaints of undersigned have been registered as at the level of registration. However, if the those of senior citizen as requested in the petition itself If appellant/complainant submits supporting yes, when the hearing likely to take place and if no kindly documentary proof that they falL within senior provide the reasons for the same as Sr. Citizens have priority citizens category, the matter would be taken up by in terms of notification # CIC/Legal/2007/006 of CC dated the Commission on priority basis as indicated in 13th February, 2008. notification no. CIC/LEOAL/2007/006 dated lath ClC/DS/A/2011/1800 & 1801, CIC/SS/A/2011/001108, February, 2008. However, the current status of CIC/SM/A/2011/1790 & 1791, 1792, these cases is mentioned below. CIC/SS/A/2011/001259.

For- CIC/DS/A/2011/1800 & 1801- As informed by the registry of IC (DS), has been registered and these files are taken in the senior citizen category and are placed before the Hon. IC for orders.

For- CIC/SS/A/2011/001108- As informed by the registry of IC (SS) There has been no such provision of registration of appeal under the categories of senior citizen.

However, the date hearing of Case No.CIC/SS/A/2011/001108 has been scheduled for 26.9.2011. The notice for hearing is being issue separately from the concerned file.

For- CIC/SM/A/2011/1790 & 1791, 1792- As informed by the registry of Chief IC, the appeals have been noted as that of Senior Citizens.

These will be taken up for further processing when their turn comes after giving them due priority.

For- CIC/SS/A/ 2011/001259- As informed by the registry of IC (SS), the hearing is yet to be scheduled, which will take some more time.

I. Kindly provide copy of the explanation received in response The designated officer of the IC (SG) has stated as to show-cause notice issued in CIC/AD/C/2011/000793/SG, under: "The explanation runs into 18 pages. The Page 2 of 3 due on 18/08/2011 and the action taken on the same. same will be provided after payment of Rs. 38/-

Rs. 2/- per page as photocopying charges."

J. Kindly provide copy of the explanation received in response The designated officer of the Chief I.C has stated to show-cause notice issued in CIC/SM/C/2010/001174, and as under: "A copy of the explanation received the action taken on the same. from the concerned CPIO along with the comments of the Appellate Authority, is enclosed herewith. It has been placed on the file and action on the same is yet to be taken."

K. Kindly provide copies of response to show-cause notices in The designated officer of the Chief IC has stated disposal of complaints against u/s 18 of RTI Act, 2005 as under:- issued from 01/01/2011 by CIC Shri Satyanand Mishra and "There are very large numbers of cases in which the action taken on the same. show cause notices have been issued. It is not possible to provide copies of the responses received as it would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority".

L.    Kindly provide copy of report on functioning of RTI Cell as            The designated officer of the Chief I.C has stated
      was directed by CIC in the case # CIC/WB/A/2010/000646-                as under: "A copy of the report on the functioning
      SM.                                                                    of the RTI Cell of dc is enclosed herewith, as
                                                                             desired."
Grounds for the First Appeal:

Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):

The FAA disposed off the appeal directing the PIO to provide the reply to the requisite queries within 15 working days.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO despite the order by the FAA.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present Appellant: Absent;

Respondent: Mr. S. Padmanabha, CPIO & Dy. Secretary alongwith deemed PIOs;

The PIO states that the information available on the records has been provided to the Appellant. The Appellant is expressing certain dissatisfaction with the working of the Commission. The PIO has no role to play in this.

Decision:

The Appeal is disposed.

Information available on the records appears to have been provided. This decision is announced in open chamber.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 11 May 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SS) Page 3 of 3