Central Information Commission
Mr. Kishanlal Mittal vs Central Information Commission on 12 March, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000204/SG/17631
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000204/SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Kishan Lal Mittal
1305, Dhruv, Ashok Van, Borivali East,
Mumbai-400066
Respondent : Mr. S. S. Padmanabha
CPIO & Dy. Secretary Central Information Commission 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 RTI application filed on : 13/08/2010 PIO replied : 03/09/2010 First appeal filed on : 13/19/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 13/10/2010 Second Appeal received on : 02/02/2011 Information Sought:
a) The Appellant has sought copies of file noting by IC/any other official on basis of which the cases more than 60 cases (mentioned in RTI) were heard out of turn.
b) Kindly provide file noting in the case as to why the case # CIC/WB/A/2009/000580 was heard when the case U CICJWB/A/2009/000552 registered prior to it was pending hearing.
c) Kindly provide registration # of following 2nd appeals/complaints filed in CIC:
(i) Kishanlal vs. lIT dated 1 June, 2010 & 30th June, 2010.
(ii) Kishanlal vs. IIM dated 1 July, 2010.
(iii) Kishanlal vs. SW dated 22July, 2010.
(iv) Girish Mittal vs Railway Board, New Delhi dated 01/08/2010.
(v) Girish Mittal vs. Commission for Rail Safety dated 16/03/2010.
d) Kindly provide details of registration of 2nd appeals/complaints as that of senior citizen which are heard on priority. Kindly provide information on whether the appeals/complaints CIC/DS/A/2010/000913, CIC/DS/C/2010/000441 are registered as that of senior citizen. If they are not registered as senior citizens, kindly provide reasons thereof, especially, when it is clearly indicated that the said appeals are that of a senior citizen.
e) Kindly provide details of action with file noting in non compliance cases CIC/AT/A/2009/000428- DS & CIC/DS/C/2010/00029 & if CIC/WB/A/2009/000013.
f) Kindly provide copies of correspondences received from appellant and public authority after the notice of hearing was issued for File # ClC/AT/A/2010/000280 along with tile noting. Also, provide copy of decision in the above case.
g) Kindly provide copies of legal notices/notices of writs received by CIC since 1St April, 2010 and action taken thereon with file noting.Page 1 of 2
h) Kindly provide information if the appeals/complaints against CIC are heard on priority and when this decision was taken. Kindly provide copy of such order of the commission.
i) Kindly provide information if facility of video conferencing is provided by CC to out of Delhi appellants. Kindly let me know if this policy is different in registries of different commissioners.
j) Kindly provide information on if lawyers are allowed to attend hearings on behalf of appellants/public authorities. Kindly let me know if this policy is different in registries of different commissioners.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
The PIO stated: "In this regard, it is informed that your query no. a- & (b) would qualify as 'one request' for which you have already paid IPO of R.s.10/- and the same is in process. You may therefore, send separate request (and pay fees for your queries separately"
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA disposed off the appeal directing the PIOs to provide complete information to the Appellant to the queries within 5-10 working days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO despite the order of the FAA. Information on points (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) not provided fully...Also whatever information s provided is much delayed.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. S. S. Padmanabha, CPIO & Dy. Secretary alongwith other officers;
The PIO had stated that query (a) & (b) consisted of one subject matter and hence separate application fee would have to be paid by the Appellant for the other queries. The PIO had given this decision consequent to the decision no. WB/A/2008/01256 dated 18/07/2008 given by the Chief Information Commissioner.
The PIO states that the complete information with respect to query (a) & (b) has been provided to the Appellant. The PIO states that reasons why one matter given priority on other was not recorded on the files and hence no information could be provided.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
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 12 March 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (IN) Page 2 of 2