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 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Pallavi Gaikwad vs Ministry Of Road Transport & Highways on 30 August, 2024

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                  के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                              बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MORTH/A/2023/647638

Ms. Pallavi Gaikwad                                          ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                     ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways
Date of Hearing                     :      28.08.2024
Date of Decision                    :      28.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner         :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :         12.07.2023
PIO replied on                    :         11.08.2023
First Appeal filed on             :         16.08.2023
First Appellate Order on          :         15.09.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :         06.10.2023

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.07.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"RTI ACT 2005-Following information is required regarding T. Surya Kiran (Executive Director) recruitment in ASRTU (Association of state road transport undertakings) which comes under Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, under the RTI Act, 2005:
1. As per minimum eligibility criteria for the selection of Executive Director at ASRTU in 30th Dec 2021, an applicant should holding a post next to the CEO or HOD level post having operational experience in SRTU with a minimum fleet strength of 2000.
Provide the following information/certified copies of documents in regards to T. Surya Kiran fulfilling the minimum eligibility criteria.
a) Details of his academic background viz. Doctoral qualification, Bachelor's Degree, Master's Degree, 12th standard qualification and 10th standard qualification. Provide the certified copies of mark sheets and certificates of the aforesaid academic qualifications. If any information and/or documents of the aforesaid qualifications is/are not in the record of ASRTU / MORTH that may be specifically stated (applicable for each of Doctoral qualification, Bachelor's Degree, Master's Degree, 12th standard etc.).
Page 1
b) Provide documentary evidences that T. Surya Kiran fulfilled the experience criteria.
c) And other related information."

The Under Secretary/CPIO, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, New Delhi vide letter dated 11.08.2023 replied as under:-

".............it is stated that the information sought by you has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and is exempted from public disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2023. The FAA vide order dated 15.09.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Written submission dated 22.08.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Not present Both the parties remained absent despite service of hearing notice. Decision:
At the outset, the Commission takes grave exception to the absence of PIO during hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. Accordingly, present PIO is hereby directed to file a written explanation justifying the said conduct.
Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the custodian of information. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 2 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)