Central Information Commission
Shri. Umesh L Halkar vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 14 November, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000770/SG/15637
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000770/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Umesh Halkar,
Quarter No. D1+1/6,
Kaiga Township,
Mallapur - 581400
Respondent : Mr. S. K. Srivastava
CPIO & Dy. Chief Engineer(Project), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.
NPCIL, 12- N- 11, Vikram Sarabhai Bhawan,
Anushaktinagar, Mumbai - 400094
RTI application filed on : 27/09/2010
PIO replied on : 16/11/2010
First Appeal filed on : 09/12/2010
First Appellate Authority order of : 27/12/2010
Second Appeal dated : 12/02/2011
Q.No. Information sought Reply of Public Information Officer (PIO)
1. Action taken and copies of all Mr. Shetty had given a statement dated 08/09/2010
documents related to the complaint wherein he submitted that he visited the Appellant's
filed vide letter no. Kaiga Township/ house to obtain Pranic healing treatment for his UH(271)/ 2010 dated 13/09/2010 prolonged skin allergy and not to hurt your feelings or against Mr. Kishore Shetty. disturb your peace, etc. A copy of the statement was enclosed.
2. Action taken vide letter no. Nil dated Mr. V. D. Naik was counseled by the then SM (HR) on 20/02/2007 against Mr. V. D. Naik 22/08/2008 and during conciliation, Mr. Naik had along with copies of all documents repented his mistakes and assured orally that he will not related to the complaint. repeat such lapses in future.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Dissatisfied with the information provided. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA observed that the CPIO had already provided the information vide letter dated 16/11/2010. The CPIO was requested to provide the file notings and action taken on the Appellant's complaints and not the final outcome within 15 days.
Further to the FAA's order, the PIO, vide letter dated 24/01/2011, provided the file notings and action taken on the Appellant's complaints.
Ground for Second Appeal:
Dissatisfied with information provided after FAA's order.Page 1 of 2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Umesh Halkar on video conference from NIC-Karwar Studio; Respondent: Mr. S. K. Srivastava, CPIO & Dy. Chief Engineer(Project) on video conference from NIC-Mumbai City Studio;
The Appellant admits that he has received all the information but states that the photocopies sent by the PIO had not been attested. The Commission warns the PIO that if information sent in response to RTI application is not duly attested the Commission will consider imposing penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The PIO is directed to send the complete information with all photocopies duly attested to the Appellant before 25 November 2011.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to send the attested copies as directed above to the Appellant before 25 November 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 14 November 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ANP) Page 2 of 2