Central Information Commission
Mr. Rajesh Gouhari vs Educational Consultants India Ltd on 11 January, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002759/6351
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002759
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Gouhari
A-1/107, Janak Puri,
New Delhi - 1100058
Respondent : Mr. U.S.Gaikwad
Public Information Officer & DGM (HR) Educational Consultants India Ltd 18A, Sector 16A, Noida - 201301 RTI application filed on : 16/06/2009 PIO replied : 14/07/2009 First appeal filed on : 18/07/2009 First Appellate Authority order : No Order Second Appeal received on : 30/10/2009 Date of Notice of Hearing : 09/12/2009 Hearing Held on : 11/01/2010 S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO (after first appeal had been filed)
1. The details of expenditure, with The project was an ongoing one and the complete working being debited to exact profit could be calculated only after RJIT project on account of posting the completion of the project. The bill of superfluous staff and the payment to the construction agency (the complete reasoning and justification major expenditure) was enclosed. thereof. Superfluous staff was not covered under the definition of 'information' under the RTI Act, 2005.
2. Copy of the Chief Vigilance The Appellant was requested to deposit Officer's Report in regard to the Rs4/- towards documentation for the inspection of the RJIT site purpose of obtaining copy of the report. Tekanpur, Gwalior on 05/06/2009.
3. Details of loss incurred till date on Linked to reply no. 2.
account of posting of staff at RJIT site.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO. Order of the FAA:
No Order.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
That the Appellant has still not been supplied with the proper information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. M.L. Gouhari on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Gouhari; Respondent : Mr. U.S.Gaikwad, Public Information Officer & DGM (HR);
The PIO has supplied all the relevant information to the Appellant. The appellant who is an employee of EDCIL has been posted by the public authority to Gwalior. It is apparent that the appellant does not like this posting and has been filing over a hundred RTI applications asking multifarious queries and even then information is provided to him. He insists on filing the second appeal. RTI is the citizen's right to get information and if has any grievance he should get it redressed at the appropriate forum.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
The information has been provided to the Appellant.
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 January 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(PS)