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

Kamal Thakur vs Indian Council Of Medical ... on 10 November, 2022

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                             केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/ICOMR/A/2021/630688

 Kamal Thakur                                        .....अपीलकताग /Appellant

                                    VERSUS/बनाम


 Public Information Officer Under RTI,
 Administrative Officer-(RTI Cell),
 Indian Council of Medical Research,
 Department of Health Research
 (Ministry of Health & Family Welfare),
 V. Ramalingaswami Bhawan,
 Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029.

                                                       ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

  RTI application filed on          :   25.06.2021
  CPIO replied on                   :   28.06.2021
  First appeal filed on             :   30.06.2021
  First Appellate Authority order   :   14.07.2021
  Second Appeal received at CIC     :   16.07.2021
  Date of Hearing                   :   10.11.2022
  Date of Decision                  :   10.11.2022


                   सूचना आयुक्त   : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
            Information Commissioner:    Shri Heeralal Samariya




                                                                       Page 1 of 4
 Information sought

:

The Appellant sought following information:
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 28.06.2021, as under:
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 30.06.2021.
• The FAA vide order dated 14.07.2021 held as under:
• Written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 01.11.2011, as under :
Page 2 of 4
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present Respondent: Dr. Neeraj Aggarwal, SC(E), ICMR.
The Appellant submitted that the requisite information has not been furnished till date. He further stated that the Respondent be directed to furnish the information as sought.
The Respondent submitted that the relevant information as available in their official record has been duly provided to the Appellant. He further submitted that he would abide by the order of the Commission if any.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their written submission along with annexures, dated 01.11.2022, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. No legal infirmity is found in the response Page 3 of 4 furnished by the Respondent. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 4