File Nos. CIC/SH/A/2014/000727, 000736, 000772, 000836, 001369 and 001918. Case: Ajay Manda Vs Central Public Information Officer. Central Information Commission

Case NumberFile Nos. CIC/SH/A/2014/000727, 000736, 000772, 000836, 001369 and 001918
CounselFor Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: M.S. Jairath, C.P.I.O.
JudgesSharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner
IssueRight to Information Act
Judgement DateMay 15, 2015
CourtCentral Information Commission

Decision:

Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner

1. These files contain appeals in respect of the RTI applications dated 16.11.2013, 10.6.2013, 31.12.2013, 12.10.2013 and 1.5.2014, filed by the Appellant, seeking information on various issues. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he has approached the CIC in second appeal in all the cases.

2. With regard to the RTI application dated 16.11.2013 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000727), the Appellant stated that he was not satisfied with the replies of the CPIO to points No. 1, 8, 9 and 10. In point No. 1, he sought information regarding the Liaison Officer who represented the reservation policy of Government of India. The CPIO responded that no such Liaison Officer was appointed in the institute. The Appellant stated that he wants to know as to which officer of the institute was performing the task, mentioned in point No. 1, in the absence of appointment of a Liaison Officer for this purpose. The CPIO is directed to provide such information on the above issue, as is available on the records of the public authority, to the Appellant. He is further directed to respond to the specific queries in points No. 8, 9 and 10 of the RTI application, based on the records of the public authority.

3. Regarding the RTI application dated 10.6.2013 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000736 and CIC/SH/A/2014/000772), the Appellant stated that he was not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO to points No. 1, 2 and 3. Having perused the records, we see no ground to interfere with the reply of the CPIO to the above points. The Appellant also sought to raise the issue of date of certain action of the Respondents. He was informed that he could not raise additional queries after filing an RTI application. In spite of our repeatedly asking him to point out the specific query of the RTI application dated 10.6.2013, in which the above issue of date was raised, he was unable to do so. In view of the foregoing, no further action is due on this RTI application.

4. With regard to the RTI application dated 31.12.2013 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000836), the Appellant stated that he was not provided information in response to the queries at points No. 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 to 34. It is noted that this application contained 34 queries in all and in most of the cases, information was sought in a tabular form for a period of twenty six years. The Respondents stated that they do not have compiled information for such a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT