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 1, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Mrs.Neelam Raichand vs Cbdt on 28 January, 2014

                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                         Room No.-307, 2nd Floor, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan
                                Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
                                          Website : cic.gov.in
                                   Telephone No.: +91-11-26105682



                              File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/001169


 Appellant:                                           Mrs. Neelam Raichand, New Delhi
 Public Authority:                                    CBDT, New Delhi

 Date of Hearing:                                     28.01.2014
 Date of decision:                                    28.01.2014



Heard today, dated 28.01.2014.

Appellant not present.

Public Authority is represented by Shri MS Sharma, FAA/Dy Secy (Ad.VII), Shri
Kunwar Balwant Rao, SO (Ad.VII), CBDT and Shri Ashok Kumar, ITO HRD/CPIO,
New Delhi.

FACTS

Vide RTI dt 12.6.13, appellant had sought information on 8 points relating to the office of DGIT(Inv).

2. CPIO vide letter dt 16.7.13, observed that the information asked for and issues raised are in the nature of queries and clarifications relating to the office of DGIT(Inv) North which are outside the purview of the RTI Act. A copy of the RTI was transferred to CPIO, DGIT(Inv)North. (copy submitted to the Commission and taken on record.)

3. An appeal was filed on 16.7.13 as no response was provided.

4. AA vide order dt 26.8.13, observed that information sought in paragraphs iii to viii is seeking reasons/clarifications which is beyond the scope of information as defined by the RTI Act. CPIO was however directed to provide a response to paragraph i and ii. CPIO vide letter dt 18.9.13 provided a response. (Copies are submitted to the Commission and taken on record.)

5. Submissions made by public authority were heard. In the absence of the appellant, her views could not be ascertained.

DECISION

6. The Commission sees no reason to interfere with the orders of the CPIO/AA.

The appeal is disposed of.

1

Sd/-

(Rajiv Mathur) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy forwarded to:

The CPIO CBDT Room No.150, North Block New Delhi -110001.
The First Appellate Authority CBDT Room No.150, North Block New Delhi -110001.
Smt. Neelam Raichand W/o Shri Arun kumar Raichand House No.9, Mausam Vihar, New Delhi-110051.
(Raghubir Singh) Deputy Registrar .02.2014 2