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

Mrk Ravi vs Ministry Of Culture on 28 September, 2015

                          Central Information Commission, New Delhi
                                   File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001976
                        Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section (19)




Date of hearing                            :    28th September 2015


Date of decision                           :    28th September 2015



Name of the Appellant                      :    Shri  K. Ravi,
                                                S/o. Shri Krishna Gounder, 6/10­B, 
                                                Munusamy Gounder Street, Beerangimedu, 
                                                Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District, 
                                                Tamilnadu ­604 202


Name of the Public                         :    Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent                            Archaeological Survey of India,

Archaeological Department, Gingee Sub  Circle, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District,  Tamilnadu­ 604 202 The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Villupuram. On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Vardaraj Suresh, APIO was present at the NIC  Studio, Villupuram.

Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This   matter,   pertaining   to   an   RTI   application   dated   27.12.2013   filed   by   the  Appellant,   seeking   information   on   five   points   regarding   wages   paid   to   him   and   his  hospitalisation, came up today.  The Respondents stated that point­wise reply was given  CIC/SH/A/2014/001976 to the Appellant by the CPIO on 23.1.2014.   The Appellant prayed for direction to the  Respondents   to   provide   him   a   job.   He   was   informed   that   the   Commission   was   not  competent to issue such directives and in case the information sought by him was not  provided, he should make a submission concerning the same. In response, the Appellant  stated that he was provided the information, but is a poor person and needs a job with the  Respondents.

2. Having considered the submissions made before us, we find no substance in this  appeal and it is dismissed. 

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

Sd/­ (Sharat Sabharwal) 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/SH/A/2014/001976