Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

P S Sharma vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 29 April, 2022

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                     के न्द्रीय सच
                                                 ू ना आयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गगं नाथ मागग, मुननरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

शिकायत संख्या / Complaint No.:- CIC/NRALF/C/2020/136424-UM

Mr. P S Sharma



                                                           .... शिकायतकताा / Complainant

                                        VERSUS
                                          बनाम

CPIO,
Northern Railway, Station
Road, Ferozepur Cantt -152001

                                                                 ....प्रशतवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing    :             04.04.2022
Date of Decision   :             29.04.2022



Date of RTI application                                            02.07.2020
CPIO's response                                                    Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal                                           10.08.2020
First Appellate Authority's response                               Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Complaint by the Commission            20.11.2020



                                       ORDER

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

Page 1 of 3
Dissatisfied due to non - receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. 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 Navneet Arora, Assistant Director attended the hearing.
The Complainant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that no response was furnished to the appellant. The Respondent present during the hearing stated that a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Complainant. The respondent further informed that the information sought by the appellant pertains to a third party and the third party denied sharing his information with him and the response was furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 06.08.2020 DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Furthermore, the instant matter is a Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Page 2 of 3 Act, 2005 where the Commission is only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a malafide intent or due to any unreasonable cause which the Commission is unable to conclude herein. Hence, no further intervention is required in the instant matter.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.




                                                          (Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर)
                                              (Information Commissioner) (सच        ु )
                                                                           ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अशिप्रमाशणतएवसं त्याशितप्रशत)




(R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव)
(Dy. Registrar) (उि-िंजीयक)
011-26182598
शदनांक / Date: 29.04.2022
GS




                                                                             Page 3 of 3