Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs Ministry Of Defence on 4 May, 2017

                             dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                    Dyc fcfYMax (iksLV vkfQl ds ikl)
                        Club Building (Near Post Office)
                   vksYM Tks ,u ;w dSEil, ubZ fnYyh-110067
                       Old JNU Campus,New Delhi-110067
                       Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
                         Email - [email protected]

                                        File No. CIC/YA/C/2014/000440/SD
                                              Date of Decision:04/05/2017
Relevant facts emerging from the Complaint:

Complainant                  :   Dinesh Chandra Nambudri
                                 Near Jyoti Vidyalaya
                                 Joshimath, Uttarakhand
Respondent                   :   CPIO
                                 21, Border Road Task Force
                                 Pin-930021, C/o 56 APO
RTI application filed on     :   11/07/2013
PIO replied on               :   09/10/2013
First appeal filed on        :   N.A.
First Appellate Authority    :   N.A.
order
Complaint dated              :   20/05/2014

lwpuk vk;qDr                       :   fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :             SHRI DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA


Information sought

:

The Complainant sought information regarding residential land being occupied by GREF on lease in terms of the copy of the original lease deed, whether he is eligible for receiving the rent on account of the occupancy subsequent to his father's death, number of times the lease deed was renewed and why were the names of the heir of his father removed from the renewed contract while their names are present in revenue records.
Grounds for the Complaint:
1
The CPIO has not provided the desired information. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Raj Kumar Prakash, AEE (Civil) & CPIO, 75RCC(GREF), C/o 56 APO present in person.
CPIO submitted that available information has been provided to the Appellant despite BRO (BRDB) being an exempt organisation under Section 24 of the RTI Act.
Decision Commission upholds the submission of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 2