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.Ramvilash Yadav vs Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare on 26 September, 2011

                      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                          Club Building (Near Post Office)
                        Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                               Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                    Decision No. CIC/AG/A/2011/001473/SG/14843
                                                           Appeal No. CIC/AG/A/2011/001473/SG

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                            :      Mr. Ramvilas Yadav,
                                            3/2 Yadav Niketan, Near Parsi Agyari
                                            Benraumbag, Jogeshwari (W),
                                            Mumbai - 400102

Respondent                           :      Mr. Arvind Kumar

PIO & Dy. Director (Admin) Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 04/01/2011 PIO replied on : 01/02/2011 First Appeal filed on : 17/02/2011 First Appellate Authority order on : 10/04/2011 Second Appeal received on : 23/05/2011 Q.No Query

1. Please provide from where the rule regarding admission in dental science Dr Ram Manohar Lohia, New Delhi has come from.

2. Whether laws of Indian dental Council are followed.

3. Is this course been considered as a post graduate course? Reply of PIO Not enclosed Grounds for the First Appeal:

Not enclosed Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Not enclosed Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information furnished by the PIO RML Hospital says that RML is not following 1st appellate order No. 9/11/RMLH/AA & HOD (R)/RTI/9663.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Ramvilas Yadav on video conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio; Respondent : Mr. Arvind Kumar, PIO & Dy. Director (Admin);
The PIO shows that he has provided the information to the Appellant on 01/02/2011. The appellant claims that the gazette notification is being wrongly interpreted by the department. For this the Appellant would have to approach appropriate forum. The PIO has given him the basis which has been followed by the hospital and if the Appellant believe that this has been wrongly applied, he would have to approach appropriate an forum for this. Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
Information available on the records has been provided. 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 26 September 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)