Central Information Commission
Prabhakaran Singh Bais vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 24 May, 2017
t :'tf: CENTRAL INFORMATTON COMIVUSSION clll-B:tl{in8, opposite Ber sarai Market, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - [0067.
Tet: +91-ll_26t79548 Lq(g Decision No. CIC/DS/C DOLilO0ZZSS/VS/0018\
-
complainr No. cIC/DS/c2ot Uoozzsarys Date: 16.05.2012. COMPLAINT REMANDED TO : ,/ f irst Appell atl Authority
-,/ Delhi Development Autlority, A-llll?,Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi - I10023. Complainant v,/St*Rampat, House No. WZ-503, Tihar Village, NewDelhi -ll00lg. .,/ Public Infomation Officer : ,/ public Information Officer Delhi Development Authority, O/o The Dy. Director (Enf.) Land, 3'd Floor, press iuilding, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi -l10023. tr'acts :
the plo on07.lz.20l0 seeking The complainant has filed a RTI application with information' Not having received any.ipry rr"* the PIo within the prescribed time, he approached the commission by firing a compraint 21.10.201l.
under ilti., ig;f the RTI Act on It is observed that ttre complainant has not approached I the First Appellate Authority (FAA) - as prescribed under ttre RTI Act.
Decision:
Hence, the matter is now remanded to the FAA.
The Commission hereby directs the FAA to treat the complaint (enclosed herewith) as thl First Appeal and decide the matter in accordane *ithh;p;orisions ortne RTI Act after perusing the relevant documents and giving be heard.
all concerned p*irrL opportunity to Mile deciding the matter, the FAA is directed to examine whether any information was provided by the PIO within the mandated period and ir proriaea, whether it was complete, relevant and conect. Where the FAA is provided by the PIo is satisfied ttut tt.
information per the records, the First Appeal shall be disposed ^as or. rne Commission shall be intimated of the same.
C. L C. -'o i.;.,,-
lssLrtri)
2 I l',laY 2oi2
I
J('
p.toyg:q.* il.1h1,X11l inthe
In the event that no inforination has h1:e:e:e:e:e:e:e:e:e:e:e:e:e:e:en t"f"*"d; -h;;.pty dyittre PIO, ttre fi,rntsha fU qtutl{lt{ 9:TO:1: complete witha #;'ffi;; t"tht Rrl application dated 07'?'2010 to the ;;fi ilt. cffi'1il. Furth;, u3 raa s-!a|-1T.f:H,Sj ;;#;';t *"i"i"is.tt" g enquiry Ule aeUy in ffi-t complete'information by the PIO affixing ."TP lg ry3-:gg hrffihid,ln 'irlr identiffing ttre officerG) So responsilble, if any' with the orders of qhe tAA'lhe will be Furthermole, if ttre coi@lainant is not satisfied under Sectign !9(3) lof the RTI free ro move a second lpp.JUtiot the Commission Act The Complaint is disPirsed of.
, u,L'iE.*,,-., I I {,lrtshrrina Informatioh Cohmissioner I :
Enclosed: Copy ofComplaintreceived on 2l'10'2011; and :
Copy of Rn application darcd 07.12.2010' ! Authenticated tnre coPY.
(V.K. Sharma) I I I t .^':! t '.. .