Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ravish Tandon vs National Handloom Development ... on 4 March, 2024

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                 के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NHDCL/A/2023/111961

Shri Ravish Tandon                                         ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                    ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
National Handloom Development
Corporation Limited

Date of Hearing                        :   04.03.2024
Date of Decision                       :   04.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner         :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :        08.11.2022
PIO replied on                    :        02.12.2022
First Appeal filed on             :        30.01.2023
First Appellate Order on          :        02.03.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :        03.03.2023

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.11.2022 seeking information on following points:-

A. "Please provide the copy of Forensic Audit Report of Lucknow branch submitted to CBI by NHDC."

The CPIO, National Handloom Development Corporation Limited vide letter dated 02.12.2022 replied as under:-

"...आपके दवारा चाही गयी सूचना आरटीआई अधिधनयम 2005 की िारा 8 (1) (h) के तहत प्रदान नहीीं की जा सकती ।"

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 02.03.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Written submission dated 11.02.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Absent Respondent: Absent Both the parties remained absent at the time of hearing despite due service of hearing notice.

Decision:

At the outset, the Commission takes grave exception to the absence of PIO during hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. Accordingly, present PIO is hereby directed to file a written explanation justifying the said conduct, failing which an action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act will be initiated against him/her, if necessary.

The present PIO is directed to ensure that his written submission reaches the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which ex-parte action will be initiated against him/her.

Commission, after perusal of case records observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. No legal infirmity is found in the response furnished by the Respondent. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.

Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2