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

Mr.M B Karmarkar vs Banking Division on 9 September, 2010

                         dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
                         Central Information Commission
                             2 ry] foxa 'c' / 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing
                          vxLr ØkfUr Hkou / August Kranti Bhavan
                           Hkhdkth dkek Iysl/ Bhikaji Cama Place
                           ubZ fnYyh ­ 110066 / New Delhi - 110066

                                                                       Dated: 9.9.2010

 Proceeding in Appeal No.  CIC/SM/A/2010/000184­AT      Present: Shri A.N. Tiwari Present: , Central Information Commissioner Appellant:   Shri M. B. Karmakar Respondents:  Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund Shri M.B. Karmakar of Pune has filed this appeal dated 31.12.2009 before the Commission against the Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF), Mumai against the decision of CPIO for providing incomplete and false information to his RTI- request dated 17.11.2009.

2. Perused papers submitted by the appellant, it is observed that appellant's RTI- request dated 17.11.2009 was replied to by CPIO, SASF, Mumbay vide letter No. BY/ SASF/ RTI/ 2605/ 09-10/27 dated 14.12.2009. The appellant preferred his first-appeal on 30.12.2009 before General Manager & AA, SASF, Mumbai.

3. In order to avoid multiple proceedings under section 19 and 18 of the RTI Act, viz., appeals and complaints, the matter is remitted to General Manager & AA, Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund, 10th Floor, IDBI Tower, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005, with the following directions:

i) In case the first appeal dated 30.12.2009 has not been disposed of by AA, he should dispose of the first appeal by passing a speaking order in the matter, within 2 weeks of receipt of this order.
ii) In case AA has already disposed of the first-appeal, he should furnish a copy of his order to the appellant within 1 week of receipt of this order.
iii) A copy of First Appellate Order should also be endorsed to the Commission.

4. In case the appellant still feels aggrieved by the decision of AA, he shall be free to approach the Commission in second appeal under Section 19(3), along with complaint under Section 18, if any, within the prescribed time limit.

5. The matter is closed with the above directions.

Sd/­ (A.N. Tiwari)   Information Commissioner