Central Information Commission
Shailendra Singh Tarkar vs Cbi on 14 July, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000212/MP
Appellant : Shri Shailendra Singh Tarkar, Khagaria
Public Authority : Central Bureau Investigation, Patna
Date of Hearing : July 10, 2017
Date of Decision : July 14, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Present - through VC
Respondent : Shri Rohit Kapoor, SP - through VC
RTI application : 05.01.2015
CPIO's reply : 10.02.2015, 08.04.2015
First appeal : 27.02.2015
FAA's order : 30.03.2015
Second appeal : 02.08.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Shailendra Singh Tarkar, the appellant, sought total no .of Animal Husbandry scam cases registered by CBI similar to Fodder Scam case in Bihar and total no. of cases in which charge sheet was issued; total no. of such above mentioned scam cases pending for final decision in courts; total loss caused to Govt. ex-chequer due to such scams; etc., through nine points.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) provided a point wise response to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the appellant filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and requested the FAA to direct the CPIO to provide complete and correct information as sought by him in the RTI application. The FAA directed the CPIO to provide information to the appellant once again since, the earlier reply dated 10.02.2015 appeared to have been dealt by his subordinate and not the CPIO himself, within 15 days of the receipt of the FAA's order. The CPIO, vide reply dated 08.04.2015, informed the appellant that he was not present in the Branch at the time of the receipt of the RTI application, however, a time bound reply was sent to the appellant through senior officer next in rank to the Head of Branch after going through the office records. The CPIO reiterated his response w.r.t. the appellant's RTI application. Aggrieved, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that he was not given the desired information under points 3, 4, 8 & 9 of the RTI application by the CPIO and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the requested information.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the information provided by the CPIO on points 4, 6, 8 & 9 of the RTI application.
4. The respondent stated that the appellant's RTI application dated 05.01.2015, had been already heard and decided by this Commission in Appeal No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000212, vide order dated 04.11.2016 and, therefore, the appeal ought to be dismissed.
5. On hearing both the parties and perusing the available records, the Commission observes that since the appellant's RTI application of the same date i.e., 05.01.2015, on this subject matter has been already heard and decided by this Commission in Appeal No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000212, vide order dated 04.11.2016; therefore, no further intervention on the part of the Commission is called for in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Central Bureau of Investigation, Central Bureau of Investigation, Suptdt. of Police, Joint Director, Special Crime Branch, O/o Joint Director, Dr. S.K. Singh Path, Bailey Road, Patna Zone, Dr. S.K. Singh Path, Patna, Bihar - 800 022 Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar - 800 022 Shri Shailendra Singh Tarkar, "Press", PO - Sanhouli, District - Khagaria, Bihar - 851 205