Central Information Commission
Chandrika Ram vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 28 July, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No. CIC/MOCAF/A/2021/109792
In the matter of:
Chandrika Ram
... Appellant
VS
The CPIO
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
O/o the Official Liquidator,
9th Floor, Sangam Palace, Civil Lines,
Allahabad - 211 001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 11/11/2020 CPIO replied on : 09/12/2020 First appeal filed on : 16/12/2020 First Appellate Authority order : 29/01/2021 Second Appeal filed on : 25/02/2021 Date of Hearing : 27/07/2022 Date of Decision : 27/07/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone (due to VC connectivity issue) Respondent: Kuldeep Singh, Assistant Official Liquidator and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought The appellant has sought the following information pertaining to the primary schools run and managed by the Uttar Pradesh State Cement Corpn. Limited - Churk Sonbhadra:
1. Provide following details with regard to the payment of salary to 2 Principals, 17 Asstt. Teachers and 2 Peons -
(i) Period of payment of salary 1
(ii) Amount of salary paid
(iii) Mode of payment of salary.
2. Provide a copy of the order, on the basis of salary has been paid to the above stated employees.
3. Provide a list of employees who have been paid salary as stated above.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. The CPIO vide written submissions dated 20.07.2022 submitted that the information furnished to the appellant was well within time and as per the records available with the office. He further submitted that the appellant was a teacher in the school run by the ex-management of the company (presently in liquidation) and his claim was settled by the Claim Committee framed by the High Court of Allahabad as per the provisions of the Companies Act 1956. Thereafter the dividend amount is Rs 3,07,819/-
He further submitted that the appellant has been informed that the information pertaining to the above named company is also available with the High Court of Allahabad, which is in public domain and anybody can obtain the same from the High Court, Allahabad. In this regard an order was passed on 24.10.2007 in the above named company in liquidation. He further submitted that a notice was published in the newspapers on 03.03.2009 informing the claimants who have filed objections to inspect records with the office of the Official Liquidator, Allahabad.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO and the FAA had provided available information. Moreover, the CPIO had submitted a suitable explanation vide written submissions dated 20.07.2022. Therefore, the appellant was asked to point out the deficiency in the reply given by the CPIO, to which he submitted that he is not satisfied as the information asked for was as per the RTI Act and no information was interrogatory in nature.2
The Commission finds the submissions and the reply of the CPIO just and proper. Moreover, the appellant failed to point out any particular flaw in the reply given.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission is not inclined to provide any relief to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3