Central Information Commission
Ankur Jain vs Bureau Of Indian Standards on 18 December, 2019
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BISHQ/A/2018/125375
Ankur Jain ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO, M/O. Consumer ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Affairs, & Food Public
Distribution, New Delhi-
110002.
2. CPIO, EDCIL (India) Ltd., Noida,
UP-201301.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 26-12-2017 FA : 07-02-2017 SA : 23-04-2018
CPIO : 04-01-2018 FAO : 12-03-2018 Hearing : 12-12-2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/O. Consumer Affairs, & Food Public Distribution, New Delhi seeking following information:
" 1. a. Kindly intimate the reason for not considering his letter dated 07-11-2017.
b. Kindly intimate the name, designation and address of the officials who were responsible for considering his letter.
2. Provide the delivery record of his admit card in which it was mentioned that it has been provided to him by EDCI and Co.Page 1 of 4
3. Kindly intimate the name, designation of the EDCIL and Co. Ltd. officials who have information regarding his admit card.
4. Kindly provide the proof of the receipt of admit card by him."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.01.2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 07-02-2018 requesting that the information sought should be provided to him. The first appellate authority replied on 12.03.2018, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that the information sought has not been provided and requested the Commission to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, and also direct the CPIO to furnish the information sought for. Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Ankur Jain did not attend the hearing despite notice. Mr. Sushil Kumar, Section Officer and Mr. Sunil Mathur, PIO, EDCIL and Co. participated in the hearing representing the respondents through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The respondent no. 1 informed the Commission that the information sought by the appellant pertains to respondent no. 2 and accordingly the RTI application of the appellant was transferred to respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 04.01.2018, under intimation to the appellant. He submitted that the responsibility of providing the admit cards to the candidates for the examination lies with respondent no. 2, hence, the information regarding the same could only be provided by respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 informed the Commission that the information sought by the appellant has already been provided to him vide letter dated 07.05.2018. The respondent no. 1 further stated that their FAA had further provided a point- wise reply to the appellant vide its letter dated 12.03.2018. The given replies were also read out by the respondents.
Decision:
5. This Commission observed that due information, as available in records, has been provided to the appellant vide letters dated 04.01.2018, 12.03.2018 and 07.05.2018. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required.
6. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु मारगु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक / Date : 12-12-2019 Page 2 of 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, M/O. Consumer Affairs, & Food Public Distribution, Bureau Of Indian Standards, CPIO & Estt., Manak Bhawan, 9, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002.
2. The CPIO, EDCIL (India) Ltd., Nodal PIO (RTI Cell), Corporate Office : EDCIL House, 18A,Sector-16A, Noida, UP-201301.
3. Mr. Ankur Jain Page 4 of 4