Central Information Commission
Mrraj Narayan vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 31 August, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110067
Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2014/000373/SB/
Dated: 31.08.2015
Appellant: Shri Raj Narayan,
B1/98, Yamuna Vihar,
New Delhi110053.
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer/
Office of the Registrar General of Census,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Mansingh Road,
New Delhi 110011.
Date of Hearing: 31.08.2015
ORDER
1. Shri D.C. Singh, Dy. Registrar, CIC intimated vide note dated 24.04.2014 addressed to Registrar, CIC that there are 106 incomplete petitions filed by different citizens against various public authorities. It would not be appropriate at this stage to issue defect memos in respect of these cases. The petitions may be got registered on priority basis. He further informed that while issuing hearing notice, the concerned appellant/complainant may be advised to furnish the relevant documents well before the hearing.
2. Based on the documents available on the file the following facts emerge:
(i) Shri Raj Narayan filed an application dated 10.12.2010 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),Office of the Registrar General of Census, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi seeking some information/documents relating to caste census, e.g., time schedule for conducting castewise census as declared by UPA Government, details of progress made/steps taken for conducting castewise census as per schedule, proforma developed for conducting caste census, details of nodal agency responsible, proposed time schedule by which it will be completed, etc.
(ii). The appellant filed appeal dated 13.05.2011 before the Commission.
Hearing:
3. Both the parties were absent during the hearing. However, the CPIO has submitted written statement in the matter informing that in response to the RTI Application dated 10.12.2012 the CPIO had furnished the relevant information vide letter dated 30.12.2010. The CPIO also stated that since information as available on that date has been furnished to the appellant and since the appellant did not file any appeal before the FAA, the appeal may be dismissed.
Decision:
4. The Commission observes that information has been provided to the appellant. Hence, no further action is required in the matter.
5. The Appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy.
(V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer