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

Atulkumar G vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 27 February, 2017

                     CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                     2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
                       Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066
                                 Tel : +91-11-26186535

                                           File No. CIC/YA/A/2016/902019

Appellant:               Mr. Atul Kumar G
                         Room no. 204 JNPP NPCIL liaison
                         Office cum guest house Behind Hotel Sangam
                         Regency Near Railways Station,
                         Ratnagiri- 415639, Maharashtra.

Respondent:              Central Public Information Officer
                         NPCIL, 12-N-14 Vikram Sarabhai Bhawan
                         Anushakti Nagar. Mumbai- 400094

Date of Hearing:         17.02.2017

Dated of Decision:       17.02.2017

                         ORDER

Facts:

1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 09.02.2016, seeking information regarding name and place of posting of the employees who have been extended facility of hired accommodation at NPCIL's cost as per office order no NPCIL/HRP/11(26) /2009/396 and the name of the city where such employees (who are beneficiaries of hired accommodation at NPCIL's cost as per office order no NPCIL/HRP/11(26) /2009/396) have been given accommodation etc.
2. The CPIO responded on 09.03.2016. The appellant filed first appeal dated 21.03.2016. The FAA responded on 05.04.2016. The appellant filed second appeal on 21.05.2016 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to him.
1
Hearing:
3. Both appellant and respondent participated in hearing through video conferencing.
4. Appellant stated that he had filed RTI Application on 09.02.2016 and received reply from the CPIO on 09.03.2016 but information was not provided. Then, he filed First Appeal on 21.03.2016.
5. Respondent stated that they have provided all the available information to the appellant vide CPIOs reply dated 09.03.2016 and 05.04.2016.
Discussion/ observation:
6. The Commission observed that required information on point no 1, 2 and 5 has not been provided and should be provided. Point 1 relates to copy of file concerned. Point 2 relates to name of beneficiary employees. Point 5 relates to delay in disposal of his application for accommodation.
Decision:
7. The respondent is directed to provide the required information on point no's 1, 2 and 5 of the RTI application dated 09.02.2016 to the appellant within 15 days after receipt of this order.

The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.

(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar 2