Central Information Commission
I S Sidhu vs Edcil (India) Limited on 21 May, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/EDCIL/A/2018/100518/00693
File no.: CIC/EDCIL/A/2018/100518
In the matter of:
I S Sidhu
... Appellant
VS
CPIO/ Dy. General Manager (HR/Admn.)
EDCIL (India) Limited,
Corporate Office: EDCIL House,
18 A, Sector 16A, Noida - 201 301
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 15/07/2017 CPIO replied on : 04/10/2017 First appeal filed on : 05/09/2017 First Appellate Authority order : 05/10/2017 Second Appeal dated : 03/01/2018 Date of Hearing : 21/05/2019 Date of Decision : 21/05/2019 The following were present:
Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Shri Avinash Kumar Singh, Executive (Hindi), Representative of the CPIO, present in person Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Photocopies of RTI Applications received during 01/06/2016 to 31/03/2017.
2. Photocopies of replies to the above RTI applications.
3. Photocopies of notings on which RTI applications were processed for giving replies.1
4. Photocopies of FACT letter No. HO/PF/SECY/2016-17 dated 31/01/2017, regarding transfer of Provident Fund.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondents during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that only partial information was given on point no. 3. He had sought the notings on the basis of which the concerned RTI applications were processed which were not provided. On a query by the Commission, the CPIO's representative submitted a copy of the updated reply dated 21.05.2019, in which the photocopies of the notings on which RTI applications were processed for giving replies as available and existing on their record was provided. He also handed over a copy of the same to the appellant during the hearing.
The appellant contended that the notings now provided are not the complete information as asked for in the application as notesheets related to the year 2016 was not provided. The CPIO agreed to provide the same. Observations:
Based on the averments of both the parties, it was noted that the CPIO had provided pointwise information with documents, except for point no. 3. The CPIO agreed to provide the remaining information also as pointed out by the appellant during hearing.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO shall give the remaining information within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 2