Central Information Commission
Ram Prasad Naik vs Indian Army on 23 November, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/IARMY/C/2021/145839
In the matter of
Ram Prasad Naik
... Complainant
VS
CPIO
Indian Army
Office of the Commanding Officer
20 Guards, Pin- 910920
C/O 56 APO
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 04/01/2021 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Complaint filed on : 11/10/2021 Date of Hearing : 23/11/2022 Date of Decision : 23/11/2022 The following were present: Complainant: Present over VC
Respondent: Hav Clerk Mukesh Kumar, CPIO's representative, present over VC Information Sought:
The Complainant has stated that Ms. P. Gayatri, wife of Y. Vasudev, has submitted an allegation petition against her husband Y. Vasudev, No. 15615898Y, Rank- Hav, Unit - 20 Guards to his office. Mr. Y. Vasudev is a client of the Complainant. Ms. Gayatri has foisted a criminal case against him. Mr. Vasudev committed suicide on 27/08/2021. In the said context, complainant has sought the following information:
- Provide a copy of the allegation petition filed by Ms. P. Gayatri.1
Grounds for Complaint The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing: The complainant submitted that till date no reply has been provided to him. The CPIO vide his written submissions dated NIL has stated that an appropriate reply was given to the complainant on 30.01.2021. He has also informed that the appellant had filed another RTI application dated 16.10.2021 seeking similar information and a detailed reply to that RTI application was given on
02.12.2021.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that vide the letter dated 30.01.2021 the sought for information was provided to the complainant. Even though this information could have been denied under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act being third party information, however, since the same has been already provided to the complainant, no comment is required. However, the CPIO is advised to be careful while handling the RTI applications in future.
Decision:
In view of the above, since the desired information has been given, the CPIO shall resend a copy to the reply to the complainant along-with the despatch details within 3 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
2
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3