Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

V Ramamurthi vs Electronics Corporation Of India Ltd. on 6 September, 2021

                               के ीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                           बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067


ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ECOIL/A/2019/126377

Shri V Ramamurthi                                            ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Electronics Corporation of India Ltd.             ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri M Srirama Saran Prasad-
CPIO/DGM(CS & Law)

Date of Hearing                      :    06.09.2021
Date of Decision                     :    06.09.2021
Chief Information Commissioner       :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on              :   22.02.2019
PIO replied on                        :   06.03.2019& 22.05.2019
First Appeal filed on                 :   19.03.2019
First Appellate Order on              :   09.05.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint received on       :   03.06.2019

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2019 seeking information about quality testing of EVMs (Electronic Voting Machines) and Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) units manufactured by the Electronic Corporation of India Ltd (ECIL) which was responded to by the CPIO vide letter dated 06.03.2019, as under:-

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.03.2019. The FAA/ECIL vide order dated 09.05.2019 directed the CPIO to obtain information from the concerned official and provide the same to the Appellant within one week.

In compliance of the FAA's order, the CPIO vide letter dated 22.05.2019 replied as under:-

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through video conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone attended the hearing through video conference, while the Appellant remained absent and has not communicated the cause of his absence to the Commission.

Decision:

In the light of submissions placed on record by the Respondent, it is noted that substantial amount of information, as permissible under the RTI Act, has been provided by the Respondent, in compliance with the directions of the FAA. The Appellant has chosen not to buttress his case, despite service of hearing notice in advance. As such, it is not possible to ascertain the ground for filing this appeal. The Commission finds no reason to intervene in this case.

The appeal is disposed off with no further directions.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. चटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3