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 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mr. M G Devasahayam Ias Retd vs National Archives Of India on 25 November, 2011

                     Central Information Commission, New Delhi
                          File No. CIC/WB/C/2010/000382­SM
                  Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section  (19)




Date of hearing                        :                               25 November 2011


Date of decision                       :                               25 November 2011



Name of the Complainant                :    Shri M G Devashayam
                                            103, Ceebros Bayview,
                                            4th Seawad Road, 
                                            Valmiki Nagar,
                                            Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai - 600 041.


Name of the Public Authority           :    CPIO, National Archives of India,
                                            Janpath,
                                            New Delhi.



        The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.

        On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Rajesh Verma, CPIO was present.

Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra

2. The Appellant did not turn up in the Chennai studio of the NIC in spite of  notice.   The   Respondent   was   present   in   our   chamber.   We   heard   his  submissions.

3. In   his   application   addressed   to   the   PMO,   the   Appellant   had   sought  several  details  about  the  imposition  of  emergency in  the  mid­seventies  and  some  other  related  information.  The  PMO  transferred  his  application  to   the  CIC/WB/C/2010/000382­SM MHA   which   in   turn   transferred   it   to   the   National   Archives   since,   in   the  meanwhile, the relevant records had probably been transferred to the Archives  as per the policy of the government. Although, initially, the CPIO of the Archives  had not been able to locate the relevant records, subsequently, it seems, the  records could be located and some 400 pages of information was provided to  the Appellant. As the Respondent informed, the Appellant, in the meanwhile,  had probably visited the Archives and inspected the records.

4. In the light of the above, there is no more information to be disclosed in  the case. It is disposed off accordingly.

5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy.  Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against  application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this  Commission.

(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/WB/C/2010/000382­SM