Decision No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001321/SG/14520 and Appeal No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001321/SG. Case: Chander Bhan Dhindhora Dean, College of Agriculture CCS, Haryana Agriculture University Vs Mr. R.K. Sharma CPIO and Dy. Director All India Radio Minister of Information and Broadcasting. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | Decision No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001321/SG/14520 and Appeal No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001321/SG |
| Judges | Shailesh Gandhi, I.C. |
| Issue | Right to Information Act |
| Judgement Date | September 09, 2011 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
Decision: Shailesh Gandhi, I.C. Information Sought: 1. Action taken report of the Appellant's representation dated 15/11/2010 and 13/12/2010 entitled "Aakashvani Rohtak par...hetu pratayavon" 2. With reference to your letter Ministry of Information and Broadcasting ID No. C-13019/2/2010/- Vig. dated 19/10/2010, action taken report on, further, Appellants representation dated 11/11/2010 and 13/12/2010 entitled "Complaint against Sh. Ramphal Chahal, Programme Executive, AIR Rohtak Centre" 3. Action takrn on report on paper under Consideration on the orders of Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi as intimated by the Section Officer, Cen. Vig. Commission vide letter No. 3645109-105440 dt. 20/10/2010. 4. Action taken on letter/reminder dated 11/11/2010 on this connection and 13/12/2010entitled "Aakashvani.....shikayat" 5. Action taken on representation dt 13/12/2010 entitled "August2010 ko Aakashvani......karvahi hetu" 6. Which all have been received by the department Please provide the date wisedetails of the action taken on the same. 7. Which officer/employee of the concerned authority or department or Aakashvani has done the delay please provide their names and also mention that which officer undertook enquiry and in how much time and for how many days did they keep the letters with them. Please provide date wise details of the same. 8. Please provide the report of the action taken on all the above mentioned letters alongwith the noting. Reply of PIO: 9. Copy not enclosed. Grounds for the First Appeal: 10. The Appellant was not satisfied with the reply of PIO. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA): 11. No order. Ground of the Second Appeal: 12. No order has been passed by the FAA. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: 13. The following were present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. R.K. Sharma, CPIO and Dy. Director and Mr. S.K. Upadhyay, SVO; 14... |
To continue reading
Request your trial