Central Information Commission
Vipen Kumar Parwanda vs Directorate Of Prosecution Delhi on 4 February, 2020
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DPREL/A/2018/129374
Shri Vipen Kumar Parwanda ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/Additional Public Prosecutor, ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
Director of Prosecution, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
Through Shri Balbir Singh,
Date of Hearing : 03.02.2020
Date of Decision : 04.02.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.02.2018
PIO replied on : 09.03.2018
First Appeal filed on : 23.03.2018
First Appellate Order on : 18.04.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 09.05.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 26.02.2018 seeking information on 04 points, inter alia:
1. Which officer from the prosecution department had opined to file appeal against the order/judgment dated 25/10/2016 passed by Hon'ble MM Sh. Arun Kumar Garg, MM-4/ SE/SAKET Courts in FIR No. 203/2010 for the complaint filed by of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Malohtra @ Sanjay Malohtra S/o Sh Khairti Lal Malohtra (K. L . Malhotra) R/o G-146 Kalkajee, New Delhi 110019.
2. Which officer from the prosecution /Department had prepared Revision Petition against the order/Judgment dated 25/10/2016?3. Which court(s) Mr. Khan, the judicial office/PP was deputed during the period 05.01.2016 to 16.01.2017?4. Whether the person signing the Revision Petition No. 24/2017 in the above noted case duly authorized in writing to file the Revision Petition?
PIO/Addl. Public Prosecutor, vide letter dated 09.03.2018 forwarded the reply to the Appellant as provided by the concerned PIO. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 23.03.2018. FAA vide order dated 18.04.2018 upheld the reply of PIO. Feeing aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 1 of 2 Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant is absent despite advance notice of hearing. Respondent is present and heard. The Respondent submits that information as available on record has already been furnished to the Appellant. The Appellant is not present to buttress his case. .
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission finds that information has already been furnished to the appellant. No further adjudication is warranted in the matter.
Appeal disposed off.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 2 of 2