Re: [HumJanenge] Recent CIC decision of Subash Chandra Agarwal

Submitting one more such decision in my case.  Now, the CIC is acting fast and referring all the complaints to the PIO's first for his explanation before hearing both the parties. This will reduce the pendency as a faster speed.

dsUsUnzhzh; lpwpw ukk vkk;kksxsx
Central Information Commission
Dyc Hkou] utnhd Mkd[kkuk / Club Building, Near Post Office
iqjqjkuk ts-s-,u-;-w-w ifjlj / Old J.N.U. Campus
ub Z fnYyh 110067
/ New Delhi – 110067
*****
No. CIC/AD/C/2010/001377
Dated: 03rd March, 2011
Name of the Complainant : Mr. Mahendra Kumar Gupta,
B205,
Sahara Plot No6,
Sector6,
Dwarka,
New Delhi
Name of the Public Authority : Public Information Officer
New Service Division,
All India Radio,
NBH, Parliament Street,
New Delhi110001
ORDER
The Commission has received a petition from Mr. Mahendra Kumar Gupta stating that
his RTIapplication
of 05.07.2010 filed with the All India Radio, New Delhi, has not been
responded to within the time limit prescribed under the RTIAct,
2005. A copy of her complaint is enclosed.
2. The Commission has decided to treat this petition as a complaint under Section 18 of the RTIAct, 2005, and hereby directs the Public Information Officer, All India Radio, New Delhi to provide the information sought by the Complainant by 15.04.2011. Even if the information has already been provided, another set of the same to be supplied to the Complainant in response to this Order. The Complainant may also be allowed inspection of relevant files and be provided with attested copies of documents including file noting, if required, keeping in view the provisions of Section 8(1) and (9) of the RTI Act, free of cost. The Complainant may approach the Commission under Section 19(3) of the Act, if not satisfied with the information. The Public Information Officer is also directed to report compliance with the Order by 15.04.2011. 3. It appears that the PIO's action attracts the penal provisions of Section 20(1). Therefore, you are directed to send the following to the Commission by 15.04.2011 by speed post or hand deliver.

i) A copy of the information sent to the complainant

ii) Your explanation for not supplying the information to the Complainant within the mandated time.

(Mrs. Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
CC:
1. Mr. Mahendra Kumar Gupta,
B205,
Sahara Plot No6,
Sector6,
Dwarka,
New Delhi
2. Public Information Officer,
New Service Division,
All India Radio,
NBH, Parliament Street,
New Delhi110001
3. Officer Incharge, NIC

---

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, 7 March, 2011 5:26:18 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Recent CIC decision of Subash Chandra Agarwal

I am also submitting a similar decision in the case of Amit Gupta (my son) case No. CIC/AD/2010/001238 dated 17^th January, 2011 by Mrs. Annapurna Dixit against the PIO, Passport office.

 

dUsUs nzhzh; lpwpw uk vk;ksxsx

Central Information Commission

Dyc Hkou] utnhd Mkd[kkuk / Club Building, Near Post Office

iqjqjkuk ts-s-,u-;-w-w ifjlj / Old J.N.U. Campus

ub Z fnYyh 110067

/ New Delhi – 110067

*****

No. CIC/AD/C/2010/001238

Dated : January 19, 2011

Name of the Complainant : Shri Amit Gupta

Name of the Public Authority : The Public Information Officer

Regional Passport Office

CPV Division, Patiala House Annexe

New Delhi 110001

ORDER

The Commission has received a petition from Shri Amit Gupta stating that his

RTIapplication

of 5.7.2010 filed with the PIO, Regional Passport Office, CPV Division,

New Delhi has not been responded to within the time limit prescribed under the RTIAct,

2005. A copy of his complaint is enclosed.

2. The Commission has decided to treat this petition as a complaint under Section 18

of the RTIAct,

2005, and hereby directs the Public Information Officer, Regional Passport

Office, CPV Division, New Delhi provide the information sought by the Complainant by

31.3.2011 Even if the information has already been provided, another set of the same to

be supplied to the Complainant in response to this Order. The Complainant may also be

allowed inspection of relevant files and be provided with attested copies of documents

including file notings, if required, keeping in view the provisions of Section 8(1) and (9) of

the RTI Act, free of cost. The Complainant may approach the Commission under Section

19(3) of the Act, if not satisfied with the information. The Public Information Officer is also

directed to report compliance with the Order by 31.3.2011.

3. It appears that the PIO's action attracts the penal provisions of Section 20(1).

Therefore, you are directed to send the following to the Commission by 31.3.2011 by

speed post or hand deliver.

i) A copy of the information sent to the complainant

ii) Your explanation for not supplying the information to the Complainant within

the mandated time.

( Annapurna Dixit)

Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:

(G. Subramanian)

Deputy Registrar

CC:

1. Shri Amit Gupta

B205

"Sahara"

Plot No.11, Sec – 6

Dwarka

New Delhi.

2. The Public Information Officer/

Regional Passport Office

CPV Division

Patiala House Annexe

New Delhi – 110 001.

3. Officer Incharge, NIC

---

From: Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com>
To: HJ GG <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, 6 March, 2011 10:02:07 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Recent CIC decision of Subash Chandra Agarwal

After being used to long decisions in the RTI Complains / Second Appeals filed by Shri Subash Chandra Agrawal, here is a short and sweet order from IC Annapurna Dixit, concerning one of his complains against the CPIO, Min of External Affairs, New Delhi.

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_AD_C_2010_001295_M_52512.pdf

Of course, we would never know what has he asked for, but I hope that the penalty proceedings would reveal more.

Manoj