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 2]

Central Information Commission

Ms. Ramesh Chandra Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 20 January, 2009

                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                        Room no. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
                      Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110066
                             Tel: +91 11 26161796

                                              Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00059/SG/1178
                                                       Appeal No. CIC/ SG/A/2008/00059

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                            :       Ms. Ramesh Chandra Sharma
                                             H.No. 10055 B, Gali No.1
                                             West Gorekh Park Shahdara
                                             Delhi-32

Respondent 1                         :       Public Information Officer

Municipal Corporation of Delhi North Zone Shahdara G.T. Road, Keshave Chowk New Delhi-32 RTI application filed on : 28/07/2008 Reply of the PIO : 20/08/2008 First Appeal filed on : 01/09/2008 First Appellate Authority order : 27/09/2008 Second Appeal filed on : 22/10/2008 Information Sought:

The appellant had sought information regarding High Mask Light in Kashyap Park and Iron Gate in front of Rahul General Store of Gali No.5 from PIO, Municipal Corporation of Delhi ,North Zone Shahdara, G.T. Road, Keshave Chowk , New Delhi-32.
PIO vide letter dated 20/08/2008 forwarded the application to EE-Elec (VI) Shahdara North Zone. Rely was received by the applicant from the forwarded PIO on two points out of four points requested by the applicant.
Not satisfied by the response of the PIO, the appellant filed First Appeal on 01/09/2008.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
'The PIO was directed to provide complete information within 10 Days under intimation to this office.' However the PIO has still not complied with the orders of the First Appellate Authority.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing: The following were present.
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Ved Pal PIO The respondent shows that he has sent a reply after the order of the First appellate authority on 23/10/2008.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 20-01-2009 (In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)