Central Information Commission
Vinod Kumar Arora vs Broadcast Engineering Constulatants ... on 25 January, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000514
Appellant : Shri Vinod Kumar Arora, New Delhi
Public Authority : Broadcast Engg Consultant India Ltd, Noida
Date of Hearing : December 28, 2016
Date of Decision : January 6, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Present - at CIC
Respondent : Shri Mahesh Chand, AGM - at CIC
RTI application : 21.10.2015
CPIO's reply : 19.11.2015
First appeal : 20.12.2015
FAA's order : --
Second appeal : 23.01.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Vinod Kumar Arora, the appellant, sought the relevant verified copies of notings where the matter was put up to take decision for non renewal of his contract. He also sought the verified copies of documents/letters received from EMMC; copies of letters issued for extension of his contract after 31.12.2012; whether BESIL was allocated any project of EMMC; the name of the project; the responsibility of BESIL and the current status of the project, etc.
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the appellant approached the first appellate authority but the CPIO had already sent a reply to the appellant. The appellant does not appear to have made an appeal to the first appellate authority after having received the CPIO's reply and the appellant came in appeal before the Commission.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had requested for information from BECIL for renewal of his contract after 31.12.2012 along with copies of renewal of his contract. He stated that the respondents had given him information for the period prior to 31.12.2012.
4. The respondent stated that no individual order was issued for renewal of contract, therefore, they could not provide a copy. The Director of Electronic Media Monitoring Centre sent recommendations and being a service provider, the BECIL accepted their instructions. He stated that they had provided the copy of note sheet to the appellant. The appellant intervened and denied having received the same and also added that he had sought inspection of the relevant file. The respondent offered the inspection of the relevant file on 12.1.2017 at a mutually convenient time.
5. On hearing both the parties and going through the available documents, the Commission finds that the appellant had sought inspection of the relevant file and information pertaining to the period after 31.12.2012 and, therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide an inspection of file qua the appellant's case alone and give the relevant extracts of the noting qua the appellant keeping the RTI Act, 2005 in view on 12.1.2017. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to :
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Broadcast Engg Consultant India Ltd Broadcast Engg Consultant India Ltd BECIL Bhawan, C-56/A-17 BECIL Bhawan, C-56/A-17 Sector-62, Noida-201307 Sector-62, Noida-201307 Shri Vinod Kumar Arora LD-192, Saardar Patel Apartments Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110034