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

Mr.Rajesh Gauhari vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 9 September, 2013

                      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                Room No.-307, 2nd Floor, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan
                       Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
                                 Website : cic.gov.in
                         Telephone No.: +91-11-26105682


                           File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000236


Appellant:                                           Shri Rajesh Gouhari, New Delhi
Public Authority:                                    EdCIL (India) Limited, Noida
Date of Hearing:                                     09.09.2013
Date of decision:                                    09.09.2013



Heard today, dated 09.09.2013.

Appellant is present.

The Public Authority is represented by Shri B.Datt, Dy GM/PIO and Shri V.V.Murari,
FAA/Chief GM.

FACTS

Vide RTI dt 20.1.2012 appellant had sought information on 7 points relating to copies of TA/DA bills of Mrs. Anju Banerji, Shri D. Singh for their foreign tours and other issues.

2. An appeal was filed on 12.3.2012 as no response was received.

3. AA vide order dt 28.3.2012 observed that the information sought was of a voluminous nature and hence the concerned controlling authorities took some time to provide the information to the PIO. PIO vide letter dated 6.3.2012 has informed the appellant that he may deposit Rs. 948/- for 474 pages. Appellant was advised to deposit the documentation fee.

4. Appellant vide letter dated 21.4.2012 informed FAA that he has not received any communication from PIO and as the information has not been provided within the prescribed time limit, the information should be provided free of cost. The appellant, however enclosed Rs. 950/-.

5. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the response to the queries raised at sl no.1,2,3,4 and 7. Though voluminous papers have been provided, the appellant feels that some information sought by him is missing.

DECISION

6. The Commission directs the PIO to provide inspection of the concerned files in regard to query no.1,2,3,4 and 7 of his RTI on a mutually convenient date and 1 time, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within three weeks from date of receipt of the order.

The appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

(Rajiv Mathur) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy forwarded to:

The CPIO EdCIL(India) Limited Ed.CIL House, 18A, Sector 16A, Noida -201 301.
The First Appellate Authority EdCIL(India) Limited Ed.CIL House, 18A, Sector 16A, Noida -201 301.
Shri Rajesh Gouhari A-1/107, Janak Puri New Delhi -110058.
(Raghubir Singh) Deputy Registrar .09.2013 2