Central Information Commission
R P Aspal vs National Textiles Corporation Ltd. on 16 April, 2018
केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबागंगानाथमागग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुननरका, नईनिल्ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No :CIC/NTCLD/A/2017/191470
In the matter of:
R P Aspal
...Appellant
Vs.
The CPIO, National Textile Corporation
Ltd, Core IV, Scope Complex 7, Lodi Road,
New Delhi-110003. ...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 16.09.2016
CPIO reply : 13.10.2016
First Appeal : 24.10.2016
FAA Order : 22.11.2016
Second Appeal : 10.12.2016
Date of hearing : 03.04.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 16.09.2016 sought information on two points; all relevant papers in regard to the promotion of one Shri A.K.P Karamchandani from time to time with date(s) and post(s) held in NTC Ltd and all relevant papers leading to his retention on contract basis for long periods even after his retirement on superannuation on 31.12.2011. The CPIO replied on 13.10.2016. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and filed first appeal on 24.10.2016. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the appeal by virtue of its order dated 24.10.2016. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed a 1 second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 10.12.2016.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Shri Mohit Kumar,
Assistant Personnel Officer cum APIO,
National Textile Corporation Limited
During the hearing, the respondent APIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 13.10.2016 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order dated 22.11.2016. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The appellant was not present to plead his case.
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that the replies provided both by respondent PIO and first appellate authority are just, proper and comprehensive. The sought for information is a third party information exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the respondent authority had rightly claimed exemption while furnishing the requisite reply to the appellant in the present case. Moreover, as the appellant was not present to contest his case, interference of the Commission is not called for.
With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 2