File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/000895. Case: Anupama Gahalot Vs The Public Information Officer West Central Railway General Manager's Office. Competition Commision of India

Case NumberFile No. CIC/AD/A/2011/000895
JudgesAnnapurna Dixit, I.C.
IssueRight to Information Act
Judgement DateJuly 06, 2011
CourtCompetition Commision of India

Court Information Competition Commision of India
Judgment Date 06-Jul-2011
Party Details Anupama Gahalot Vs The Public Information Officer West Central Railway General Manager's Office
Case No File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/000895
Judges Annapurna Dixit, I.C.
Acts Right to Information Act

Decision:

Annapurna Dixit, I.C.

Background

1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.7.12.10 with the PIO, West Central Railway, Jabalpur seeking information against six points with regard to one Shri Neeraj Kumar Shrivastav who had been working in the post of CVI with effect from 21.12.2004 to 20.12.2008. Shri Ajay Srivastava, PIO replied on 29.12.10 enclosing the following reply furnished by Shri A.P. Awasthi, Dy.CVO who vide his note dt.28.12.10:

'The documents desired by the Applicant is denied vide CIC's decision on case No. CIC/OK/A/2007/00294 dt.15.12.06 and Dy. Secretary(Conf.)/WCR letter dt.20.11.09.' Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.5.1.11 with the Appellate Authority stating that the exemption clause has been wrongly invoked and seeking the information once again. Shri K.L. Pandey, Appellate Authority vide his Order dt.3.2.11 upheld the decision of the PIO. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.17.2.11 before CIC stating that the information sought relates to the policy matter of vigilance branch with respect to selection of staff for deputation in vigilance organization and to some irregularities in selection procedures

Decision

2. The Commission on review of the information sought directs the PIO as follows:

a) With regard to points (i) and (ii) of the RTI application, PIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant as available on record.

b) To provide information sought against points (iii), (v) and (vii) The Commission holds that information sought against point (iv) do not comply with the definition of information as given Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Information sought against point (vi) is denied Under...

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