Central Information Commission
Hazari Lal Singla vs Food Corporation Of India on 16 March, 2018
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No.: CIC/FCIND/A/2017/100754
In the matter of:
Hazari Lal Singha
...Appellant
VS
Manager(STG Loss)/CPIO, Food Corporation of India,
District Office, Partap Nagar, Sangur, Punjab- 148001
...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 02.08.2016
CPIO reply : 26.08.2016
First Appeal : 05.09.2016
FAA Order : 10.10.2016
Second Appeal : 31.12.2016
Date of hearing : 08.03.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 02.08.2016 sought information on two points regarding details of amount recoverable from PSWC against PSWC wheat stocks for the crop years, 2001-2002 & 2002-2003 due to delivery of less stored grain to the FCI by PSWC-Barnala Centre. Details of amounts recoverable from PSWC by FCI against FCI wheat crop for the years 2002-2003 & 2005-2006(CAP/Lying) stored in the PSWC godowns due to less stored grain delivered to the FCI by the PSWC at Barnala Centre were also sought in the above stated RTI application. The CPIO replied on 26.08.2016. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and filed first appeal on 05.09.2016. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the appeal by 1 virtue of its order dated 10.10.2016. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed a second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 31.12.2016.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Shri Bharat Bhushan,
Material Store Officer cum APIO,
Food Corporation of India
During the hearing, the respondent APIO submitted that the appellant had withdrawn his appeal vide his letter dated 08.03.2018.
The appellant was not present to plead his case. On perusal of the case record, it was seen that appellant did not want to pursue his case any further. The case is dismissed as withdrawn.
With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 2