Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

K Manoj Kumar vs National Fertilizer Ltd.(Nfl) on 10 March, 2022

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                     के न्द्रीयसच
                                                ू नाआयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                                   बाबागगं नाथमागग,मुननरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

शिकायतसंख्या/ Complaint No.:- CIC/NFLTD/C/2020/133816-UM

Mr. K. Manoj Kumar
                                                           ....शिकायतकताा / Complainant

                                       VERSUS
                                         बनाम

CPIO,
Ramagundam Fertilizers and
Chemicals Limited, Ramagundam
Fertilizers and Chemicals
Limited(RFCL), Fertilizers
City,RFCL Plant, Ramagundam,
Peddapalli Telangana - 505210

                                                                ....प्रशतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing      :           09.03.2022
Date of Decision     :           10.03.2022



Date of RTI application                                            02.09.2020
CPIO's response                                                    15.09.2020
Date of the First Appeal                                           Not on Record
First Appellate Authority's response                               Not on Record
Date of diarized receipt of Complaint by the Commission            03.11.2020

                                      ORDER

FACTS The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on following points:

The CPIO vide letter dated 15.09.2020 furnished a reply to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Thereafter, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Complainant: The Complainant attended the hearing. Respondent: The respondent Shri S.K. Chauhan, DGM - HR & CPIO attended the hearing.

The Complainant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that false, misleading and partial information was provided by the CPIO. The Complainant said he had no objection to his complaint being converted into second appeal for passage of information. The Respondent present during the hearing submitted that suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Complainant.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, and after perusing the documents available on record the commission directs the Respondent to provide an updated and concise reply to the Appellant, after redacting the personal information of the third party in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.

The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.

(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अशिप्रमाशणत एवं सत्याशित प्रशत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उि-िजं ीयक) 011-26182598 शदनांक / Date: 10.03.2022 GS Page 3 of 3