Central Information Commission
Mr.Mohan Chandak vs Air, New Delhi on 22 January, 2009
Central Information Commission
SA/UG/09/F84BASF/AD
Dated January 22, 2009
Name of the Appellant : Mr.Mohan Chandak
Name of the Public Authority : AIR, New Delhi
Background
1. The Appellant filed an RTI request dt.11.3.08 with the CPIO, AIR, New Delhi. He sought information against 4 points with related to property purchased out of HBA forwarded to AIR, HQ through the Office of AIR, Mumbai during 1997. The CPIO replied on 13.5.08 providing point wise information. Not satisfied with the reply, the Appellant filed an appeal dt.19.8.08 with the Appellate Authority. Not receiving any reply, the Appellant filed a second appeal dt.30.9.08 before the CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing on January 22, 2009.
3. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dhall, Dy. Director (Admn.) and Mr. S.R. Pandey, Consultant represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was not present during the hearing. Decision
5. The Respondents submitted that the Appellant filed his RTI application on 11.3.08 and that a reply was sent to him on 2.4.08 in which besides providing information, the CPIO requested him to inspect the files and take whatever information is required. Instead of complying with the request the appellant filed his first appeal which was disposed off by the First Appellate authority with a direction to the CPIO to provide all available information within 15 days of the issue of the order and also requesting the Appellant to inspect relevant files and specified documents required. In pursuance of the Order of the first Appellate Authority, the CPIO once again furnished further information to the Appellant on 13.5.08. The Appellant however, filed another appeal to the First Appellate authority complaining that he had not received any information on 15.5.08 and followed it with a reminder of 19.5.08. The First Appellate Authority, however, once again informed the Appellant that all available information has been provided to him and once again requested him to inspect the relevant files. However, the Appellant once again did not respond to this suggestion.
6. The Commission noted that the Appellant has not placed the full facts before the Commission along with the second appeal since he has not enclosed any documents indicating the information already provided to him by the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority, thereby trying to mislead the Commission into believing that no information has been provided to him. The appeal is accordingly rejected.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair) Designated Officer
1. Mr.Mohan Chandak T-54, HUDCO Place Andrews Ganj New Delhi 110 049
2. The CPIO Prasar Bharati DG : AIR New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority & The Director General DG : Air New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC