Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Vijay Shankar Bhargav vs Gnctd on 16 January, 2023

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                     के न्द्रीयसच
                                                ू नाआयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                                   बाबागगं नाथमागग,मुननरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/103947 -UM



Mr. Vijay Shankar Bhargav
                                                                        ....अपीलकताा/Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                          बनाम



CPIO
The CPIO/Nodal Officer(RTI Cell)
Manager (Legal) Indraprastha Gas Ltd IGL Bhawan,
Plot No 4, Community Centre, Sector-9,
R K Puram, New Delhi-110022



                                                             ....प्रद्वतवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing     :            05.01.2023
Date of Decision    :            13.01.2023



Date of RTI application                                                13.10.2021
CPIO's response                                                        08.11.2021
Date of the First Appeal                                               24.11.2021
First Appellate Authority's response                                   Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                   28.01.2022

                                       ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-

The Chief Manager-Legal vide letter dated 08.11.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: The appellant attended the hearing through AC. Respondent: The respondent was not present despite notice.

The respondent remained absent during the hearing despite notice. The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that the information was wrongly denied to him by the CPIO. The appellant further stated that as per the respondent's reply, IGL issue is pending before Hon'ble Court as to whether it is a public authority or not. The appellant requested a copy of the Court's stay order in connection with the case may be provided to him.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission directs the CPIO, IGL, to furnish a copy of the stay order, if any, to the Appellant, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a Page 2 of 3 period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.

The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सच ू ना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 13.01.2023 Page 3 of 3