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 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Satish Kumar Dhankhar vs Delhi State Industrial And ... on 17 May, 2022

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                            केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.:       CIC/DSIDC/A/2021/110417

 Satish Kumar Dhankhar                                   .....अपीलकताग /Appellant

                                    VERSUS/बनाम

 Public Information Officer Under RTI,
 Superintending Engineer-(Unauthorized Colony),
 Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure
 Development Corporation Limited
 (Government of NCT of Delhi),
 Plot No.-74-A, Old MCD Property Tax Building,
 Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi-110024.

                                                     .... प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

  RTI application filed on          :   22.10.2020
  CPIO replied on                   :   24.11.2020
  First appeal filed on             :   25.11.2020
  First Appellate Authority order   :   31.12.2020
  Second Appeal received at CIC     :   08.03.2021
  Date of Hearing                   :   17.05.2022
  Date of Decision                  :   17.05.2022



                   सूचना आयुक्त   : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
            Information Commissioner:    Shri Heeralal Samariya




                                                                           Page 1 of 4
 Information sought

:

The Appellant sought following information:
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 24.11.2020, as under:
Page 2 of 4
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 25.11.2020.
• The FAA vide order dated 31.12.2020 held as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Page 3 of 4
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Mr. P.K. Agarwal, PIO, XEN, DSIIDC, present.
Respondent submitted before the Commission that reply has not been furnished in the instant matter and further submitted that he would furnish a fresh reply to the Appellant. He further submitted that he would abide by the orders of Commission, if any.
Decision:
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that no reply has been furnished to the Appellant by the concerned PIO.
Therefore, Commission directs the concerned PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a fresh point-wise reply, with regards to the instant RTI Application, to the appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
In case relevant information, as sought in the instant RTI Application, pertains to some other Branch/Department, then the PIO should procure and provide the same to the Appellant. In doing so, PIO must make sure that information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the appellant. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 4