Central Information Commission
Mrsanjay Sharma vs Ministry Of Tourism on 15 January, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001908/KY
Appellant : Shri Sanjay Sharma
Delhi NGO Welfare Federation
B-472, Avantika, Sec-1, Rohini, Delhi-110085
Public Authority : The CPIO
The Ashok, Diplomatic Enclave
50B, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021
Date of Hearing : 15.01.2016
Date of Decision : 15.01.2016
Presence:
Appellant : Absent
CPIO : Dr. Richa Mishra, DGM(HR) and Mrs. Purnima Mill, AM (HR)
FACTS:
I. Vide RTI application dated 03.07.2013, the appellant sought information on 8 issues.
II. CPIO, vide its response dated 24.07.2013, 29.08.2013, denied to provided the information u/s 8 (1) (j).
III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 08.08.2013, as desired information not provided.
IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide his order dated 02.09.2013, upheld the views of CPIO.
V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 19.09.2013, are contained in the Memorandum of Second Appeal.
HEARING Appellant opted to be absent despite of our due notice to him. Respondents appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 03.07.2013, sought information from the respondents on 8 issues. Respondents, vide their response dated 24.07.2013, allegedly partly provided and partly denied the required information to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 08.08.2013 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 02.09.2013, upheld the decision of CPIO. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
......2 -2-
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the CPIO, vide his response dated 24.07.2013, denied the required information, against issues no. 2 to 5, 7 & 8, to the appellant by taking a plea under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005. Further, against issues no. 1, provided the required information to the appellant. However, denied the required information, against issue no. 6, to the appellant by taking a plea under section 2(i) of the RTI Act 2005 Furthermore, learned FAA, vide his order dated 02.09.2013, disposed of the FA by upholding the views of CPIO.
3. The Commission heard the submissions made by respondents at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 03.07.2013, respondent's response dated 02.09.2013, FAA's order dated 24.07.2013 and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
4. In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commission is of the considered view that there is no legal infirmity either in CPIO's response or FAA's order. Therefore, the CPIO's response dated 02.09.2013 and FAA's order dated 24.07.2013 are hereby upheld being legally tenable. In view of this, the appellant's second appeal deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, it is dismissed.
5. Apart from above, the appellant's second appeal is also a non-pressed, despite of our due notice to him.
The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Krishan Avtar Talwar) Deputy Registrar The CPIO The Ashok, Diplomatic Enclave 50B, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021 Shri Sanjay Sharma Delhi NGO Welfare Federation B-472, Avantika, Sec-1, Rohini, Delhi-110085