Central Information Commission
Mrrameshwar Sharma Fwd By Post Delhi vs Ministry Of Parliamentary Affairs on 4 September, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110067
Decision No.CIC/FM/A/2014/0004303/SB
Dated: 04.09.2015
Appellant: Shri Rameshwar Sharma,
343, Gali No. 16,
Bhajanpura, Delhi110053.
,
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs,
Govt. of India,
New Delhi110011.
Date of Hearing: 04.09.2015
ORDER
1 Shri Rameshwar Sharma filed an application dated 10.01.2012 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o Parliamentary Affairs seeking information regarding (i) total amount spen on security of P.M., C.M., President and Ministers (ii) action taken on the complaints submitted by teachers of Sonepat district to the P.M. & C.M. (iii) why no action taken against the leaders and ministers who have amassed wealth (iv) whether the amendments carried out in Land Acquisition law by Haryana and Central Government have been implemented (vi) how many persons whose land was acquired have been allotted 1200 Sq. yards of residential plots and 1000 Sq. yards of commercial plots after development, etc.
2. The appellant filed first appeal dated 27.12.2013 before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Copies of CPIO's reply and FAA's Order, if any, are not available in file. The appellant filed second appeal dated 17.06.2014 with the Commission.
Hearing:
The appellant was not present despite notice, The respondent Sh. Mukesh Kumar, CPIO & Under Secretary, M/o Parliamentary Affairs, was present in person.
The respondent submitted that the appellant was informed vide letter dated 29.05.2014 that proper fees was not paid alongwith the RTI application. The appellant was further informed that the information sought by the RTI application pertained to mainly to Haryana Government and PMO, MHA and Ministry of Law & Justice. In view of this the appellant was advised to seek information from the public authorities concerned.
3. Decision:
The Commission finds no legal flaw with the order of the CPIO. Hence, no further action is required in the matter.
4.
5. The complaint 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