Central Information Commission
Mrsuresh Chandra Sharma vs Cbi on 15 July, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Decision No. CIC/CC/A/2015/000979/SB
Dated 15.07.2016
Appellant : Shri Suresh Chand Sharma,
1504, Yuka Paramount Symphony,
Crossing: Republic Town,
NH 24, Dundahera,
Ghaziabad201 016.
Respondent : The Central Public Information Officer,
Central Forensic Science Laboratory,
CBI, Block IV, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi110 003.
Date of Hearing : 15.07.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.10.2014
CPIO's reply : 16.12.2014
First Appeal filed on : 28.11.2014
FAA's Order : 18.12.2014
Second Appeal filed on : 13.01.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Suresh Chand Sharma filed an application dated 15.10.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central 1 Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) seeking information regarding action taken on his letter dated 11.08.2014 regarding the return of his Mobile that is in the possession of the CFSL.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on 13.01.2015 on the grounds that no information has been provided to him either by the CPIO or by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) concerned.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Suresh Chand Sharma was present in person. The respondent was not present despite notice.
4. The appellant submitted that the information sought has not been provided to him by the respondent. The appellant further submitted that handing over the mobile can be denied because a case is pending in a court of law. However, there are no grounds to deny information regarding the date on which the mobile in question was received in the CFSL as the same would have no bearing on the pending case.
Decision:
5. The Commission after hearing the appellant, directs the respondent to provide information regarding the date on which the mobile in question was received in the CFSL within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this decision.
6. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties. 2
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer 3