Central Information Commission
Mrsuryakant Gautam vs Csir Hqrs.,New Delhi on 29 October, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/YA/A/2015/900679/KY
Appellant : Shri Suryakant Gautam
D-29, CSIO Colony, Sec30C
Chandigarh-160030
Public Authority : The CPIO
CSIR-Central Scientific Instruments Organization,
Sec-30C, Chandigarh
Date of Hearing : 29.10.2015
Date of Decision : 29.10.2015
Presence:
Appellant : Absent
CPIO : Shri Shravan Kumar, CPIO
FACTS:
I. Vide RTI application dated 03.07.2014, the appellant sought information on the 3 issues.
II. CPIO, vide its response dated 05.01.2015 & 25.08.2014, reportedly provided the information to the appellant.
III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 11.08.2014, as desired information not provided.
IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide his order dated 03.12.2014, provided the required information to the appellant.
V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 05.02.2015, are contained in the Memorandum of Second Appeal.
HEARING Appellant opted to be absent despite of our due notice to him. Respondents appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 03.07.2014, sought information from the respondents on three issues. Respondents, vide their response dated 05.01.2015 & 25.08.2014, allegedly provided the required information to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 11.08.2014 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 03.12.2014, upheld the decision of CPIO. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
.......2 -2-
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the CPIO, vide his response dated 05.01.2015, denied the required information to the appellant by taking a plea under section 8(1) (h) & 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005. Further, CPIO vide his subsequent response dated 25.08.2014, provided the required information to the appellant. Furthermore, learned FAA, vide his order dated 03.12.2014, disposed of the FA by providing some information to the appellant.
3. The Commission heard the submissions made by respondents at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 03.07.2014, respondent's response dated 05.01.2015 & 25.08.2014, FAA's order dated 03.12.2014, other material made available on record and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
4. In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commission is of the considered view that the respondents have provided the required information to the appellant in terms of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005. In view of this, the Commission feels that the appellant's second appeal becomes redundant in this regard. Thus, the appellant's second appeal deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, it is dismissed.
Apart from above, the appellant's second appeal is also a non-pressed, despite of our due notice to him.
The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Krishan Avtar Talwar) Deputy Registrar The CPIO CSIR-Central Scientific Instruments Organization, Sec-30C, Chandigarh Shri Suryakant Gautam D-29, CSIO Colony, Sec30C Chandigarh-160030