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/2012/000728/18890

Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000728

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 : 03/07/2011 PIO replied : 02/09/2011 First appeal filed on : 22/09/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 01/11/2011 Second Appeal received on : 11/01/2012

S. No Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)

1. Kindly provide registration no. of following 2 Information as per the given format had been appeals/complaints u/s 18 & filed with CIC furnished to the Appellant. central registry: (i) 2 cases vs. CIC received in However, no information regarding its movement central registry on 11/07/2011, vs. DoPT on from the day it was diarized till it was finally 11/07/2011, vs. IIT Gandhinagar on registered is maintained in the registries as 11/07/2011, vs. Ministry of Finance on indicated. 11/07/2011.

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

3. Kindly provide diary numbers of all the cases No such information in this regard is maintained in registered/rejected from l January, 2011 in the this Commission. format given by the Appellant.

4. Kindly provide list of 2 appeals/complaints The information as maintained in the registry of IC registered as those of senior citizen in each (AD) is enclosed. However, rest of the registries registry from 1g January, 2010. Also, as cases has stated that no such information is maintained. of Sr. Citizen qualify for out of turn hearing, kindly provide details of cases heard out of

Page 1 of 3

turn in each registry in last 3 years.

5. Kindly provide list of 2 appeals/complaints u/s No such information is maintained in the registry 18 against Central Information Commission of Chief IC. pending disposal with CIC. Kindly provide this

information with the name of appellant and the

date on which it was registered and likely date of hearing as appeal vs. CIC also have priority over other appeals.

6. Kindly provide information with file noting as Information as per the given format had been to why the case CIC/SM/A/2011/000118 & furnished to the Appellant. CIC/SM/A/2011/000362, The designated officer of the Chief IC has stated as CIC/SM/A/2011/366, CI C/SM/A/2011/00373 under: "The cases with file Nos. vs. CIC were heard out of turn when CIC/SM/A/2011/000164, CIC/SM/A/2011/000203, CIC/SM/A/2011/000164/ CIC/SM/A/2011/000204 are with the Registry of CIC/SM/AJ2011/173& CIC/SM/A/2011/ 203 the Chief IC. These are under scrutiny process. CIC/SM/A/2011/204 of this applicant being a However, it may be mentioned that pendency and senior citizen, registered prior to the said cases disposal of cases differs from registry to registry. are still pending hearing. Also, As such no documents can be offered on this CIC/SM/A/2011/355 vs. Election Commission account. was heard out of turn when the case 4 #

CIC/SM/A/2011/000171 of this applicant

being a senior citizen, is pending for hearing.

7. Kindly provide information on the action taken No action was taken. Further, no reasons have been against officers/staff responsible for delay in recorded in the file / petition. registration of appeal 4 # CIC/S5/A/2011/001108-which was lodged on

24/03/2011 but registered only on 15/07/2011.

Kindly also provide reasons for delay.

8. Kindly provide information on whether the No classifications are made for the senior citizens following appeals/complaints of undersigned at the level of registration. However, if the have been registered as those of senior citizen appellant/complainant submits supporting as requested in the petition itself If yes, when documentary proof that they fall within senior the hearing likely to take place and if no kindly citizens category, the matter would be taken up by provide the reasons for the same as Sr. Citizens the Commission on priority basis as indicated in have priority in terms of notification 4 # notification no. CIC/LEGAL/2007/006 dated 13th CIC/Legal/2007/OO6 of CIC dated 13th February, 2008. However, the current status of February, 2008. CIC/DS/A/2011/1800 & 1801, these cases is mentioned below: - Information as CIC/SS/A/2011/001108 per the given format had been furnished to the Appellant.

For CIC/DS/A/ 2011/1800 & 1801- As informed

by the registry of IC (DS), it 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 for registration of appeal under the

category of senior citizen. However, the date of hearing of Case No.CIC/SS/A/201 1/001108 has

been scheduled for 26.9.2011. The notice for

hearing is being issue separately from the

concerned file.

Page 2 of 3

9. Kindly provide copy of the explanation The designated officer of the Chief IC has stated as received in response to show cause notice under: In the case No. CIC/SM/A/201 1/000752 issued in CIC/SM/A/2011/000752, due on (Jaiprakash Narayan Vs. UPSC) no show cause 29/07/2011 and the action taken on the same. notice has been issued to the CPIO and as such providing a copy of his explanation does not arise. In fact this case is under process and is yet to come up for hearing'.

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 PIOs to provide the reply to the requisite queries within 10 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 viable on the records has been provided to the Appellant. He also states that the information as directed by the FAA was also provided to the Appellant on 15/11/2011 and 08/12/2011.

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