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 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mohamed Farouk Suleman Darvesh vs Kandla Special Economic Zone on 1 April, 2019

Author: Vanaja N Sarna

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                                क य सूचना आयोग
                     CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                               बाबा गंगानाथ माग
                             Baba Gangnath Marg,
                          मुिनरका, नई द ली -110067
                         Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                              Decision no.: CIC/KSEZO/A/2017/172611/00351
                                          File no.: CIC/KSEZO/A/2017/172611

In the matter of:

Mohamed Farouk Suleman Darvesh
                                                              ... Appellant
                                      VS
Central Public Information Officer
O/o Development Commissioner
Kandla Special Economic Zone
Ministry of Commerce & Industry,
Gandhidham, Kutch - 370 230, Gujarat
                                                             ... Respondent
RTI application filed on          :   13/04/2017
CPIO replied on                   :   06/06/2017
First appeal filed on             :   29/06/2017
First Appellate Authority order   :   26/07/2017
Second Appeal dated               :   13/10/2017
Date of Hearing                   :   01/04/2019
Date of Decision                  :   01/04/2019


The following were present:
Appellant: Present

Respondent: Shri H P Jadeja, Appraiser & APIO, Kandla Special Economic Zone.

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought certified copies of the under mentioned documents, details and information with respect to Plant, Machineries, Shed and Goods stored in Plot No. 543-560, (Survey No. 155/1 (Renumbered) Part) area 1 measuring 43200 Sq. Mtrs. situated in the Kandla Special Economic Zone at Gandidham Kutch
1. Whether the Kandla Special Economic Zone (SEZ) has sold, auctioned, conveyed and transferred the said Property any person/company.If yes, provide the certified copies of the documents mentioning the name, details and address of the Bidder to whom the KASEZ has sold, auctioned, conveyed and transferred the said Property.
2. How many Bidders have submitted proposal for Bid at the time of auction of the said Property. Provide certified copies of the documents mentioning the name/s, details, applications, KYC documents along with annexure and related documents submitted by the Bidders at the time of Auction of the said Property.
3. What was the highest amount of the Auction Bid. Provide the certified copies of the documents of the highest Bid.
4. Whether any Bidder had paid Bidding amount after the final Auction of the said Property. If yes, provide the certified copies of the documents mentioning the details with narration (like cheque, RTGS/NEFT, Bank Account Statements) deposited/paid by the Highest Bidder to the KASEZ at the time of Auction of the said Property.
5. Other related information.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply received on points no 1,2,8-11,14, 24 & 29 of the RTI application as incomplete information has been provided by the CPIO on these points.
The CPIO submitted that complete information as per the records available with them has been provided to the appellant. He further submitted that they have provided a detailed reply on each point as raised in the RTI application, however, the appellant has raised new issues by way of his First Appeal and Second appeal and it is not possible for the CPIO to provide a revised reply on the additional issues raised at every appellate stage.
2
File no.: CIC/KSEZO/A/2017/172611 Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the CPIO has provided a detailed and exhaustive reply on each query raised in the RTI application enclosing all the relevant annexures along with the reply. Also, the First Appellate Authority while giving a personal hearing to the appellant has passed a speaking order, answering every issue raised by the appellant in his First Appeal. Furthermore, the appellant should also note that he should not raise new issues at the appellate stages and should confine his relief as per the original RTI application filed by him.
Decision:
Based on the above observations the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO. No further intervention is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3