Case: Brig. (Retd.) Asil Singh Vs Brig. M.R. Pattar, Brig. (Pers and Admn) and PIO and The Chief of Staff and Appellate Authority. Central Information Commission
|Party Name:||Brig. (Retd.) Asil Singh Vs Brig. M.R. Pattar, Brig. (Pers and Admn) and PIO and The Chief of Staff and Appellate Authority|
|Judges:||A.N. Tiwari, I.C.|
|Issue:||Right to Information Act|
|Judgement Date:||November 06, 2006|
|Court:||Central Information Commission|
A.N. Tiwari, I.C.
1. This is an appeal filed by Brig. (Retd.) Asil Singh against the orders dated 17.6.2006 of Col. K.R. Acharya, Col (Admn).
2. Parties were called for a hearing on 1.11.2006. The appellant was absent while the respondents were represented by Lt. Col. P.K. Roy, SO, HQ Pune Sub Area, Pune.
3. The appellant had sought through his request dated 12.5.2006 following information from the PIO:
(a) A true copy of the undersigned "defamatory" complaint typed on a computer [sic] sent by Mrs. Z. Patel and others "unnamed" to HQ Southern Command, along with the last line written in hand by Mrs. Patel has been "blocked".
(b) A true copy of the letter of Brig A & Pers of HQ Southern Command under which the complaint was sent to Commander Pune Sub Area for action.
(c) A confirmation as to whether the computer typed unsigned letter and a letter dated 30 Dec. 05 by Mrs. Patel to HQ Southern Command were received in the same envelop and the name/designation of the officer to whom they were addressed.
(d) Name of the Staff Officer to whom Mrs. Patel spoke to on 21 Dec. 05 as referred to in her letter dated 30 Dec. 05.
4. Through his order dated 26.5.2006, the PIO, Brig M.R. Pattar, referring to the appellant's communications dated 13.2.2006, 19.3.2006, 7.4.2006 and 12.5.2006, informed him that "necessary documents have been forwarded to you vide our letter No. 8308058/2/A1 dated 29th March, 2006 and 19th April, 2006."
5. The appellant filed his first appeal on 6.6.2006 before the Chief of Staff & Appellate Authority. In reply, Col. K.R. Acharya, Col. (Admn.), through his communication dated 17.7.2006, informed the appellant that "all relevant documents have been sent to the appellant."
6. The appellant has urged that what he has received from the PIO and the AA were only "truncated copy of a defamatory complaint - letter" and he has charged the PIO and the AA for "withholding the above information to defeat the ends of justice."
7. The respondents have made a detailed presentation about the information they have furnished to the appellant.
8. As per the submissions made by the respondents, it is quite clear that all information as requested by the appellant has...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL