Central Information Commission
Shri. Kishanlal Mittal vs Central Information Commission on 12 March, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000852/SG/17635
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000852/SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Kishan Lal Mittal
1305, Dhruv, Ashok Van, Borivali East,
Mumbai-400066
Respondent : Mr. S. S. Padmanabha
CPIO & Dy. Secretary Central Information Commission 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 RTI application filed on : 10/12/2010 PIO replied : 05/01/2011 First appeal filed on : 06/01/2011 First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered Second Appeal received on : 07/03/2011 Information Sought:
a) Kindly provide registration 4 of following 2nd appeals/complaints u/s 18 filed in CIC:
(i) Kishanlal vs Bank of Baroda dated 27/11/2010.
(ii) Kishanlal vs. Indian Overseas Bank 27/11/2010.
(iii) Kishanlal Mittal vs. Election Commission of India dated 29/11/2010
(iv) Kishanlal Mittal vs. Ministry of Home dated 9/12/2010.
(v) Kishanlal Mittal vs Ministry of Environment & Forests dated 09/12/2010.
b) Kindly provide diary no. of each of the above appeals with details of daily movement from the day it is received and diarized with noting of each officer through with the file passes before it is finally registered.
c) Kindly provide information on cases of non compliance received in all registries and action taken on each such case since 2007.
d) Kindly provide information on whether the appeals/complaints mentioned by the Appellant have been registered as those of senior citizen. If yes, when the hearing likely to take place and if no kindly provide the reasons for the same as Sr. Citizens have priority in terms of notification CIC/tegal/2007/006 of CIC dated 23rd February, 2008. About 15 cases mentioned in RTI application.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
1) (i) & (ii) As per the Receipt Management System of the Commission, no appeal/complaint dated 27.11.2010 has been received. You may therefore, send a copy of the same so that necessary action can be taken in this regard.
(iii) As per the Receipt Management System of the Commission, no appeal/complaint dated 29.11.2010 has been received. You may therefore, send a copy of the same so that necessary action can be taken in this regard.
(iv) The letter date which you have mentioned in your application is a complaint against MS which were received in the Commission vide diary no. 87145. Further, the case has not been registered as informed to you by the registry of Information Commissioner, Ms. Sushma Singh vide letter no.
Page 1 of 2CIC/SS/Misc/Diary no. 87145/2010 dated 13.12.2010 (Copy enclosed). However, the registry of IC(SS) has received a complaint on 10.12.2010 against MI-IA which was registered on file no. CICJSS/C/2olo/00066l with diary no. 87627 dated 13.12.2010. Further, no notings have been recorded on the aforesaid complaint.
(v) As per the Receipt Management System of the Commission, no appeal/complaint dated 9.12.2010 has been received. You may therefore, send a copy of the same so that necessary action can be taken in this regard.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order passed by the FAA.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and no order passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. S. S. Padmanabha, CPIO & Dy. Secretary alongwith other officers;
The PIO had stated that query (a) & (b) consisted of one subject matter and hence separate application fee would have to be paid by the Appellant for the other queries. The PIO had given this decision consequent to the decision no. WB/A/2008/01256 dated 18/07/2008 given by the Chief Information Commissioner.
The PIO states that he has provided the information as per records for query (a) & (b). Some of the communications sent by the Appellant do not appear to have been received by the Commission.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
Information available on the records appears to have been provided. This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 12 March 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (IN) Page 2 of 2