Central Information Commission
Shri M.P. Sarraf vs Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal on 13 July, 2009
Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/09/00989 & PB/C/08/929-SM dated
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18) & (19)
Dated: 13 July 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri M.P. Sarraf, 2/35, JL Nehru Road, Tagore Town, F G-3 Subhanjali Apartment, Allahabad - 211 002.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, 147-A, A-58/1, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Tagore Town, Allahabad
- 211 002.
The Appellant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri A. Thomas, Dy. Secretary
(ii) Shri R.S. Bora, Section Officer
(iii) Shri T.P. Srivastava, CPIO
(iv) Shri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, Advocate The case was heard on 24 June 2009.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant has filed two separate appeals, which we have clubbed together for hearing, as the subject matter is related. The fact of these cases is that in two different applications, one dated 2 May and the other 6/22 September 2008, the Appellant had requested the CPIO for a number of information concerning the functioning of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). In the former case, the CPIO informed him on 21 May 2008 that the DRT and DRAT being Public Authorities by themselves under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, he might seek such information from those Authorities directly. In the latter case, the CPIO replied on 23 October 2008 and provided point-wise CIC/SM/A/09/00989 & PB/C/08/929-SM information on almost all the items listed in his application. Not satisfied with this reply, the Appellant had approached the first Appellate Authority in an appeal on 8 December 2008 which that Authority decided in his order dated 7 January 2009 and dismissed it after upholding the reply given by the CPIO. The Appellant has come before the Central Information Commission in second appeal against this order.
3. The Appellant was not present during the hearing. We heard the submissions of the Respondent. After carefully examining the contents of the application for information and the reply given by the CPIO of the DRAT, we are satisfied that all the desired information has been given in sufficient detail and there is nothing more to be given by way of information. We are also satisfied with the reply of the CPIO of the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, in which he had advised the Appellant to seek the desired information from the respective Public Authorities.
4. Thus, both these cases are disposed off.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar CIC/SM/A/09/00989 & PB/C/08/929-SM