Amit Bansal vs Indian Army on 31 March, 2021

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Amit Bansal vs Indian Army on 31 March, 2021

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                            क य सुचना आयोग
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग
                            Baba Gangnath Marg
                        मुिनरका, नई द ली- 110067
                        Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                                          File no.: CIC/IARMY/A/2019/160964
In the matter of:
Amit Bansal
                                                               ... Appellant
                                      VS
Central Public Information Officer/RTI Cell
O/o Chief Executive Officer,
Cantonment Board, Meerut Cantt - 250 001
                                                               ...Respondent

RTI application filed on          :   21/06/2019
CPIO replied on                   :   17/07/2019
First appeal filed on             :   05/08/2019

First Appellate Authority order : 17/09/2019 Second Appeal filed on : 25/11/2019 Date of Hearing : 30/03/2021 Date of Decision : 30/03/2021 The following were present:

Appellant: Present over VC at Meerut Respondent: Shri Rajesh John, Accountant and CPIO, Shri Piyush Gautam, Assistant Engineer and CPIO, Shri Vinay Kumar Tyagi, Sanitary Superintendent and CPIO, present over VC at Meerut Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Provide details of amount incurred on the installation of idols/effigy in the park opposite to the office of the Cantonment Board, during the tenure of Mr. Rajiv Srivastava, CEO.

2. Provide the name and designation of the officials who supervised and inspected the work of installation of idols/effigy in the park.

3. Give details of all the places in the Cantonment Board area where idols/effigy have been installed. Provide a copy of the file with regard to the same, containing details of orders issues, amount spent, name of officials who supervised the work, name of the contractor, date of commencement and date of completion of work, etc.

4. And other related information.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant and the CPIO were not heard in this case as they were not prepared with the facts of the case. The appellant too did not allow the proceedings to progress smoothly. Therefore, the Commission reiterating the observations made in case no. CIC/IARMY/A/2019/148479 heard on the same day decided to adjudicate the case on merits.

Observations:

Based on a perusal of the record it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 17.07.2019 provided a reply and held that the information sought was regarding accusation of officers. He also mentioned that it appears that the same is being done to pressurise the officers. However, the appellant was offered inspection within 7 days. The FAA also vide order dated 17.09.2019 invited the appellant for inspection within 10 days. The Commission observed that the appellant was offered inspection. However, the same was not availed of by the appellant.

Decision:

The appellant shall avail inspection of the documents and take relevant copies at a mutually decided date and time by both the parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. If the appellant fails to avail of this opportunity within the time given, the case shall be treated as closed.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission