Central Information Commission
Pritam Bhattacharya vs Indian Army on 23 July, 2018
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx Hkou
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION BHAWAN
ckck xaxukFk ekxZ] eqfujdk
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
ubZ fnYyh-110067
Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
Email - [email protected]
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
File No. : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155522/SD
Date of Hearing: 23/07/2018
Date of Decision:23/07/2018
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Pritam Bhattacharya
Respondent : CPIO,
RTI Cell, ADG MT (AE),
G-6, D-1 Wing,
Sena Bhawan,
Gate No. 4,
IHQ of MoD (Army),
New Delhi-110011
RTI application filed on : 28/01/2017
CPIO replied on : 12/04/2017
First appeal filed on : 22/05/2017
First Appellate Authority : No Order
order
Second Appeal dated : 31/07/2017
Information sought:
The Appellant sought copy of certain documents pertaining to his postal life insurance policies.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.1
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Lt Col R.N. Sharma, CPIO, Maj Kamal Kapoor, IHQ of MoD(Army), Maj K. Venkatesan, APS Dte. and Lt Col B. Siva Raman, CPIO(PLI), 1CBPO present in person.
Lt Col R.N. Sharma, CPIO submitted that information sought in the RTI Application was sent to the Appellant after collection and collation on 08.05.2017 and even the present status of his PLI policies and PPF account has been again gathered from concerned agency which also he is willing to provide to the Appellant at this stage.
Appellant agreed that although CPIO is in a habit of providing information, but in this case, he has not received the reply as he apprehends that his local post office did not deliver the dak to him due to some vengeance.
CPIO agreed to provide all the documents sent by post thus far by hand if the Commission so directs.
Appellant agreed to receive the documents by hand but insisted on some particular documents received earlier by him to be certified by the CPIO.
CPIO after perusing the document urged that it is not possible for his office to certify those documents as they have not been originated from his office rather has been procured by the Appellant from some other public authority.
Appellant conceded and accepted the copy of documents from the CPIO.
Decision 2 File No. : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/155522/SD In view of the hearing proceedings, Commission does not find any further scope of action in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 3