Central Information Commission
Mrrameshwar Sharma vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 4 November, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi110067
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/001835/SB
Appellant : Shri Rameshwar Sharma,
Chamber No.F308, 3rd Floor
Karkardooma Court Parisar,
Karkardooma Court, Shahdara,
Delhi110032
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
O/o Home Minister,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block,
New Delhi110001.
Date of Hearing : 04.11.2015
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.05.2013
CPIO replied on : No reply
First Appeal filed on : 27.12.2013
FAA's Order on : No order
Second Appeal filed on : 11/14.06.2014
ORDER
1. Shri Rameshwar Sharma filed an application dated 07.05.2013 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Home Minister, M/o Home Affairs seeking information on 18 points pertaining to action taken by the Chief Minister, Haryana on the complaints made between 11/12.012.2011 - 2012 against officers of Sonepat district including (1) total amount spent on the security of PM, CM, President of India and Ministers (ii) action taken by the P.M/C.M. against teachers of Sonepat district against whom various complaints have been made
(iii) steps taken against political leaders and ministers who have amassed wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income by the P.M. and President of Congress Party (iv) whether amendments to the Law Acquisition Law has been implemented, etc.
2. The appellant filed first appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) stating that the CPIO did not reply to the RTI application. The appellant filed the second appeal dated 11/14.06.2014 before the Commission on the ground that neither the CPIO nor the FAA furnished the information sought by him and requested the Commission to direct them to furnish the information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Rameshwar Sharma was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri S. Sawanta, CPIO and Under Secretary, MHA was present in person.
4. The respondent submitted that the information related to the department and as available was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 15.05.2013.
Decision:
5. The Commission observes that information has been provided to the appellant. Hence, no further action is required in the matter.
6. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties (Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer