F. No. CIC/SS/C/2013/000500-YA, F. Nos. CIC/YA/A/2014/000052, 000683, 000685 and 002643. Case: Amal Kumar Bhattacharya Vs Shikhar Ranjan. Central Information Commission
|Case Number:||F. No. CIC/SS/C/2013/000500-YA, F. Nos. CIC/YA/A/2014/000052, 000683, 000685 and 002643|
|Party Name:||Amal Kumar Bhattacharya Vs Shikhar Ranjan|
|Judges:||Yashovardhan Azad, Information Commissioner|
|Issue:||Right To Information Act, 2005 - Section 10|
|Judgement Date:||March 02, 2015|
|Court:||Central Information Commission|
Yashovardhan Azad, Information Commissioner
F. No. CIC/SS/C/2013/000500-YA
1. The complainant filed an R.T.I. application dt. 10.04.2013, seeking information regarding declarations forms of several doctors obtained/assessed by MCI along with record of action taken by MCI in cases of all the frauds committed by Dean and teachers of M.P. Shah Medical College, Jamnagar, since 01.01.2006 till date. On not receiving any reply from the PIO within prescribed time, complainant filed first appeal. PIO vide letter dt. 11.06.2013 provided the complainant point-wise information. The FAA did not dispose of first appeal.
2. The complainant stated that PIO provided the information after a delay of more than one month. The PIO stated that the R.T.I. application was received in the dept. only on 16.05.2013 which was replied to on 11.06.2013. The complainant contended that the R.T.I. application was filed online. The respondent stated that the same was filed through an email which was only received by them on 16.05.2013. The appellant stated that copies provided to him were not satisfied and that no information was provided on Points E & F. The respondent stated that most of details sought by the complainant are available on their website. He expressed regret that these queries were left inadvertently. He urged that the information as available on record has been provided to him on Points A to D. The complainant stated that he wants this information in public interest as the same relates to recurrent frauds committed on MCI by several teachers.
F. No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000052
3. The appellant filed an R.T.I. application dt. 08.10.2012, seeking information regarding declaration forms of Dr. R.J. Chhabra, conditions in which MCI refuses recognition of a teacher or revokes LOP granted to a medical college, etc. On not receiving any reply from the PIO within prescribed time, appellant filed first appeal. PIO in his reply dt. 11.01.2013 provided point-wise information. The FAA did not dispose of the first appeal.
4. The appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided to him. He stated that the PIO in his reply has stated that there in such faculty in the faculty data by the name Dr. R.J. Chhabra, which he alleged is incorrect as the appellant himself has worked with him. The respondent stated that information was provided to the appellant only after verification of record and no doctor was found by that name. He stated...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL