Central Information Commission
Mranujgandhi vs Bureau Of Civil Aviation Security on 9 May, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 06, Club Building, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi 110067. Tel: 011 - 26182597, 26182598
Complaint No.:CIC/YA/C/2014/900165/BJ
Complainant : Mr. Anuj Gandhi
Lt. Col,
3, INF DOU,
C/o 56 APO, Pin 909003
Respondent : (1) CPIO & Dy. Director (Admn.)
Govt. Of India
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security
"A" Wing, IIIIII Floor, Janpath Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi
(2) CPIO & ACOS (R)
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security
"A" Wing, IIIIII Floor, Janpath Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi
Date of Hearing: 09/05/2016
Date of Decision: 09/05/2016
Date of filing of RTI application 06/06/2012
CPIO's response 02/07/2012
Date of filing the First appeal 07/07/2012
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of filing complaint before the Commission 04/02/2014
O R D E R
FACTS:
Page 1 of 3
The complainant through his RTI application dated 06/06/2014 had sought following information:
"Transfer Grant Claim in respect of Lt. Col Anuj Gandhi, ExController of Explosives was forwarded to RDCOS, New Delhi vide 3 Inf DOU letter no. 7057/Tfr Gth/HQ dt. 19/01/2012 but the same has not been credited in the Officer's bank till date. It is requested that the details on which date the claim was passed and cheque issued may be provided."
The CPIO/Dy. Director (Admin) vide letter dated 07/07/2012 transferred the RTI application u/s 6(3) of RTI Act to the ACOS(R), BCAS. However, it appears that no information was supplied to the complainant.
HEARING:
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent;
Respondent: Ms. Rakhee Sadhu (M:9868609281) Dy. Director;
The Complainant remained absent during the hearing. The Representative of the Respondent stated that the issue pertains to unilateral move orders issued by the Ministry of Defence (Army HQ) for releasing the complainant from his place of posting. Consequently the transfer grant as desired by the officer was not settled and the complainant had been informed about this by the Respondent on 04.10.2012. It was also stated by the respondents that they are bound by the laid down policy and procedures to settle the above issue.
DECISION:
Considering the facts of the case and the correspondences placed on record, it is quite clear that the Respondents have communicated with the complainant to explain the position of the Public Authority. On perusal of the record it is evident that this is a case for redressal of his grievance rather than denial of information. No further intervention by the Commission is required in the matter.
The matter stands closed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:Page 2 of 3
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 3 of 3