Central Information Commission
Prem Prakash Prajapati vs Department Of Science & Technology on 6 July, 2017
Wham"
MM
'+
344;; .
s
(A
'\
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION '5
Room No. w 308, 2mi Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Came Place, New Delhi --~ 110066. '
Website: cic.gov.in
Fiie N0. CICIYNNZMSIOM 396/)?!
Appellant Shri Prem Prakash Prajapati
4 industrial Area, Khurai Road
Bine, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh~4701 t3
Pubiic Authority The CPiO
National Accreditation Board for Testing &
Calibration Laboratories, Secretariat, Plot No. 45,
Sec. No. 44. Gurgaon~t22002
its?"
Date of Hearing ' L? l
Date of Deotsron . yggtgofems a?
Presence: WW ggek
Appeilant § m Absent ,1"? _' I "it:
CPlO Shri ss Foniaflafigéigtgeri
. E
was I -- i E
l. Vide éplication dag? tygrgfigltlant sougigtéjirfibrmatlonison the 3
ii. respoiféfe dat? has provider}: " information to the
ill. The First App%§§{;§A) was filed on 23.03.2015, sdesire i'rifx'mation not provided,
N. First Appellatgggég: (FAA), vide his order dated upheld the decision of
CPlO.
V. Grounds for the W r are containep in the
Memorandum of Second Appeal: W H a." 5}
HEARING ' ' I
'l-
Appeilant opted to be absent despite of our due notice to him. Respondents
appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at iength. ;
DECISION it is pertinent to mention here that the appellant, vide his RTl Application dated 23.02.2015,_ sought information from the respondents on three issues. Respondents, vide their responee dated 16.032015Lpgilegeodly provided the required information to the appellant. Being aggrieved by tpeg'aiigrieegéiigfigsgpon5e, FA was filed by the appellant on 3, 23.03.2015 before the FAA, the-fii'iéiéréie'tfipated 17.04.2015, disposed of the FA by upholding the views of CPlO. t i a (E f :3 '9" l ' I N" "t .... H2 i The Commission heard the submissions made by respondents at iength. The Commission also perused the cese~filé thoroughly; specificaiiy, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTi appiicetion dated 23.02.2015, respondent's response dated 16.03.2015, FAA's order dated 17.043015, other material made avaiiabie on record and aiso the grounds of memorandum of second appeai.
in view of the position abode and in the circumstances of the case, the Commission is of the considered view that the respondents have provided the required information to the appellant in terms of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005' in View of this, the Commission feels that the appetiant's secondwevgpeaioigegoémes redundant in this regard. Thus, the , m f sppeiiant's second ap . w 3-: -~;. g ' . . . .
, 'ervefiottbeaigsfiifiéed. i'if'tgie'reiore, it is dismissed.
Apart from above' mtgiégggfiéfi "8 seco" appeal is ais Eli/9&9 rteased, despite of our due ' '5' .553» ' u as. "if? :
notice to him. M? m: *t' 2 ' ' The Appeal is dismis'vsed accordingly.WWNX Wag ' riff?" } 9g ' u "v Authenticated true Geog;
(Krishan Avtar Talwarfag'gf'"
Deputy Registrar The CPIO National Accreditation Board for "resigned; Ptot No. 45'."
Ceiibration Laboratories, Secretariat, See. No, 44, Surgeon--122002 3, Shri Prem Prekash Prajapati industriai Area, Khurai Road . MW' '0 {3110 Bina, Sager, Madhya Pradesh--470'ii3 C' L Q/Etm K; REC *'WED gun-v ..
C. ,Jseuep '33 till? 201.
i Q o {5 ga;it§3$qmvavafean'igM ' n... . 1mmHawtmv-wmtmnww- ,g-.-" .. .
i m"
tuev.' "'3 ' a'Sn-nnlmlunflln'u 4 *mfimmn'nw1"
,W a» MM"
3t 13 2,;
t , \ t ....wn" ' 00"
WW ,2 ~i 1-