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

Shrir Senguttuvan vs Department Of Public Enterprises on 10 August, 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/2015/900110
Complainant            :       Shri R. Senguttuvan
                               Sr. Sec. SI, BHEL BAP, Ranipet
                               B-284, BHEL Township, Ranipet-632406

Public Authority       :       The Sr. Manager (HR & Law) & CPIO
                               Bharat heavy Electricals Limited, Boiler Auxiliaries Plant,
                                Indira Gandhi Industrial Complex, Ranipet-632406

Date of Hearing        :       10.08.2015
Date of Decision       :       10.08.2015

Presence:
       Complainant     :        Absent
       CPIO            :       Shri S Sridhar, DGM & CPIO

          FACTS:

I. Vide RTI application dated 12.05.2014, the appellant sought information on the 3 issues.

II. CPIO, vide its response dated 21.06.2014, has provided the information to the appellant.

III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 16.07.2014, as desired information not provided.

IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide his order dated 17.09.2014, upheld the views of CPIO.

V. Grounds for the Complaint filed on 09.06.2015, are contained in the Memorandum of Complaint.

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 It is pertinent to mention here that despite of our due notice, Complainant failed to appear either in person or 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 specifically 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 -2-

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 (Prakash) Deputy Registrar The Sr. Manager (HR & Law) & CPIO Bharat heavy Electricals Limited, Boiler Auxiliaries Plant, Indira Gandhi Industrial Complex, Ranipet-632406 Shri R. Senguttuvan Sr. Sec. SI, BHEL BAP, Ranipet B-284, BHEL Township, Ranipet-632406