Central Information Commission
Neeraj Madan vs Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. on 15 November, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/IDPCL/A/2018/614624
CIC/IDPCL/A/2018/614625
CIC/IDPCL/A/2018/614626
Shri Neeraj Madan ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutical Ltd.,
Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers)
Through: Shri Sachin Gautam ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 15.11.2019
Date of Decision : 15.11.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
614624 28.12.2017 28.01.2018 02.02.2018 --
614625 28.12.2017 28.01.2018 02.02.2018 --
614626 28.12.2017 28.01.2018 02.02.2018 --
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/IDPCL/A/2018/614624 Appellant filed the RTI application dated 28.12.2017 seeking information on twenty five points regarding various claims:-
1. Expenses claim No. KRPL/EXP REFUND/DPL/15-16/01 for 120336.00
2. Expenses claim No. KRPL/EXP REFUND/DPL/15-16/02 for 20323.00
3. Expenses claim No. KRPL/EXP REFUND/DPL/1-176/01 for 19465.00
4. Expenses claim No. KRPL/EXP REFUND/DPL/16-17/02 for 6317.00
5. Service agency claim No. KRPL/IDPL/16-17/036 for 2056.00. Etc. CPIO-IDPL vide letter dated 28.01.2018 provided point wise information to the Appellant.Page 1 of 4
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 02.02.2018. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the FAA, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the CPIO-IDPL vide letter dated 12.11.2019.
Respondent alone is present for hearing to the exclusion of Appellant, despite service of hearing notice in advance.
Respondent has submitted documentary evidence, during the course of hearing, in addition to the submissions already submitted. He states that as far as payment of bills of M/s Krittika Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Haryana is concerned, the matter is subjudice before High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The submissions further indicate that the First Appeal had been duly adjudicated vide decision dated 16.04.2018.
Decision In the light of the above facts, it appears that information as available and as per the RTI Act, was provided by the Respondent and the position also emerges that the matter about which queries have been sought is pending adjudication before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Appellant has not appeared to buttress his case. Since information as available has already been provided, and appellant has not voiced any objection, no further action is warranted in this case.
CIC/IDPCL/A/2018/614625 Appellant filed the RTI application dated 28.12.2017 seekinginformation on two points:-
1. The details of payments to be made to MSME a per MSME Act by IDPL in financial year 2016-2017 as per its balance sheet.
2. The amount payment to MSME shown in records of ROC by IDPL for the period ending 31 March 2017.
CPIO-IDPL vide letter dated 28.01.2018 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 02.02.2018. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the FAA, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the CPIO-IDPL vide letter dated 12.11.2019.
Respondent alone is present for hearing to the exclusion of Appellant, despite service of hearing notice in advance.
Page 2 of 4Respondent has submitted documentary evidence, during the course of hearing, in addition to the submissions already submitted that information as available on record has already been furnished to the Appellant. The submissions further indicate that the First Appeal had been duly adjudicated and disposed of vide order dated 02.05.2018.
Decision In the light of the above facts, it appears that information as available and as per the RTI Act, was provided by the Respondent. Appellant has not appeared to buttress his case. Since information as available has already been provided, and appellant has not voiced any objection, no further action is warranted in this case.
CIC/IDPCL/A/2018/614626 Appellant filed the RTI application dated 28.12.2017 seeking information on four points:-
1. Statement of account of Kritika Remedies Private Limited for the financial year 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18.
2. The details of TDS collected from Kritika Remedies Private Limited and deposited to the government alongwith the detailed breakup.
3. Total amount payable to Kritika Remedies Private Limited as per your records.
4. Status of payments pending bills of Kritika Remedies Private Limited.
CPIO-IDPL vide letter dated 28.01.2018 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 02.02.2018. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the FAA, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the CPIO-IDPL vide letter dated 12.11.2019.
Respondent alone is present for hearing to the exclusion of Appellant, despite service of hearing notice in advance.
Respondent has submitted documentary evidence, during the course of hearing, in addition to the submissions already submitted indicating that requisite information has been provided to the appellant. The submissions further indicate that the First Appeal had been duly adjudicated vide decision dated 26.04.2018 and the directions of the FAA were duly complied by the PIO by letter dated 16.05.2018.
Page 3 of 4Decision In the light of the above facts, it appears that information as available and as per the RTI Act, was provided by the Respondent. Appellant has not appeared to buttress his case. Since information as available has already been provided, and appellant has not voiced any objection, no further action is warranted in this case.
The appeals are therefore disposed off as such.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 4