Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Applicant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Written submissions dated 18.01.2025, 21.01.2025 and 29.01.2025 have been received from the Applicant and duly taken on record.
A submission dated 20.01.2025 has been received from the Respondent-PIO - Department of Social Justice & Empowerment indicating that reply dated 26.12.2022 had been duly sent to the Applicant. Likewise submission dated 28.01.2025 has been received from NPCL, Mumbai, dated 20.01.2025 has been received from the President's Secretariat, dated 24.01.2025 has been received from the Department of Atomic Energy. It pertinent to note that the CPIO, NPCL has stated as under:
The submission dated 28.01.2025 from the CPIO, NCSC has also been taken on record which reveals that the RTI application was duly transferred the RTI application dated 30.08.2022 to the Department of Atomic Energy on 21.11.2022.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri K Vinod - CPIO/US, Department of Atomic Energy [DAE], Ms. Shradhha Gupta - CPIO, NPCL, Shri J Minz - CPIO, NCSC and Ms. Ankita - LDC were present during hearing.
The Applicant contended that he is not satisfied with the information furnished to him and points out that even the earlier order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Commission has not been complied with so far by the Respondent. The Respondents from NCSC, NPCL and DAE contended that action in terms of the provisions of the RTI act had been duly taken by each of them, furnishing whatever information was held in their custody. The Respondent from DAE stated that complying with the directions issued by the CIC vide order dated 02.09.2024 in the second appeal number CIC/DOATE/A/2023/130368, the Applicant was repeatedly requested to visit the office of the Respondent, but the Applicant never turned up to inspect the documents.