Central Information Commission
Mralok Rawat vs National Handloom Development ... on 28 December, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/CC/A/2015/001580/KY
Appellant : Shri Alok Rawat
Chamber No. 118, 1st Floor
Lucknow Bar Chamber Building
Civil Court, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
Public Authority : The CPIO
National Handloom Development Corporation Limited,
10th& 11th Floor, Vikas Deep, 22 Station Road, Lucknow-226001
Date of Hearing : 28.12.2015
Date of Decision : 28.12.2015
Presence:
Appellant : Absent
CPIO : Shri S S Dhakanwal, CPIO and Shri S. Rajappa, Sr. Advocate
FACTS:
I. Vide RTI application dated 18.07.2014, the appellant sought information on 4 issues.
II. CPIO, vide its response dated 19.08.2014, denied to provided the information u/s 8 (1) (d,e,j).
III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 15.09.2014, as desired information not provided.
IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide his order dated 07.10.2014, upheld the views of CPIO.
V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on NIL.10.2014, are contained in the Memorandum of Second Appeal.
HEARING Appellant opted to be absent despite of our due notice to him. Respondents appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 18.07.2014, sought information from the respondents on 4 issues. Respondents, vide their response dated 19.08.2014, allegedly denied the required information to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 15.09.2014 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 07.10.2014, upheld the decision of CPIO. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
....2 -2-
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the CPIO, vide his response dated 19.08.2014, denied the required information, against issues no. 1 to 3, to the appellant by taking a plea under section 8(1) (d), 8(1) (e) & 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005. Further, learned FAA, vide his order dated 07.10.2014, disposed of the FA by upholding the views of CPIO.
3. During hearing of the appeal, Shri S. Rajappa, Sr. Advocate, justified the pleas taken by the respondents for denying the required information to the appellant, against issues no. 1, 2 & 3. It is further submitted by Shri S. Rajappa, Sr. Advocate, that respondents are now willing to provide the required information, against issue no. 4, to the appellant.
4. The Commission heard the submissions made by respondents at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 18.07.2014, respondent's response dated 19.08.2014, FAA's order dated 07.10.2014, other material made available on record and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
5. In view of the above submission made by Shri S. Rajappa, Sr. Advocate, the Commission feels that it would be appropriate and even justified to allow the appellant's second appeal partly i.e. against issue no. 4. Therefore, it is allowed in toto. Further, the respondents are hereby directed to provide the complete and categorical information to the appellant, against issue no. 4, in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act 2005, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to this Commission. If need be, Section 5(4) of the RTI Act 2005 may also be invoked in the matter.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Krishan Avtar Talwar) Deputy Registrar The CPIO National Handloom Development Corporation Limited, 10th& 11th Floor, Vikas Deep, 22 Station Road, Lucknow-226001 Shri Alok Rawat Chamber No. 118, 1st Floor Lucknow Bar Chamber Building Civil Court, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh