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 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mrashutosh Yadav vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 18 May, 2015

                                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

                                Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
                                   Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
                                              Website: cic.gov.in

                                                                               File No. CIC/KY/C/2014/000171
Complainant                :     Shri Ashutosh Yadav
                                 Pahlipar Village, Rasoli
                                 Barabanki-225001

Public Authority           :     The CPIO (Private)
                                 CMC Limited, 5th Floor, 4 PTI Bldg.
                                 Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001

Date of Hearing       :        18.05.2015
Date of Decision      :        18.05.2015
Presence:
        Complainant    :       Absent
        CPIO          :        Shri Himanshu Mitra, Legal Officer
          FACTS:

I. Vide RTI application dated 01.02.2014, the Complainant sought information on the issues. II. CPIO, response is not on record.

III. The First Appeal (FA) is not on record. IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), Order is not on record. V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on NIL, are contained in the Memorandum of Appeal. HEARING Complainant opted to be absent despite of our due notice to him. Respondents appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length. DECISION

1. It is pertinent to mention here that despite of our due notice, Complainant neither appeared either in person nor through someone, duly authorized by him before the Commission to press his case. However, the Commission feels that complainant must have appeared, in such situations, to press his complaint before the Commission, after all, it is his case to be pursued strongly but complainant is absent deliberately, despite of our due notice. Thus, it shows the intention of the complainant that he is not interested, at all, in pursuing his own case before the Commission.

2. In view of the above, the Commission feels that no fruitful purpose would be served by proceeding in such cases. Thus, the Commission is of the considered view that it would be appropriate and even justified to close the case. Therefore, it is hereby closed.

The complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar Shri Himanshu Mitra, Legal Officer, CMC Limited, 5th Floor, 4 PTI Bldg.

Sansad Marg, New Delhi-1 Shri Ashutosh Yadav Pahlipar Village, Rasoli Barabanki-225001