Central Information Commission
K C Unnikrishnan vs Board Of Industrial And Financial ... on 26 February, 2019
Author: Suresh Chandra
Bench: Suresh Chandra
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BIAFR/A/2017/150630
K.C. Unnikrishnan ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Board of Industrial ... ितवादीगण
And Financial Reconstruction, /Respondents
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI :16.06.2017 FA : 24.06.2017 SA : 10.07.2017
CPIO : No reply FAO : No order Hearing: 21.02.2019
ORDER
(25.02.2019)
1. The issues under consideration arising out of second appeal dated 10.07.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 16.06.2017 and first appeal dated 24.06.2017:
Page 1 of 3• Copy of the list of Creditors provided by M/S. Tecpro Systems Limited submitted to BIFR in relation to the Case No. 86/2015 pending before BIFR Bench Office-II.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 16.06.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi The CPIO did not give any reply.
Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed first appeal dated 24.06.2017. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 10.07.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 10.07.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO has not given any reply and the FAA did not direct the CPIO to provide the information rather returned his appeal with the remark "refused RTS" on the envelope.
4. The CPIO and the FAA have not given any reply.
5.1. Both the parties remained absent.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, including shutting down of the BIFR and having been replaced by the NCLT w.e.f. 01.12.2016, feels that at the time of filing of the RTI application dated 16.06.2017, the BIFR was not in existence. Therefore, the Page 2 of 3 Commission feels that the application/second appeal have become infructuous. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Suresh Chandra) Information Commissioner Date: 25.02.2019 Page 3 of 3