Dear Sarbajit Royji and all members,

If we search cic website for no denial of information,we get 620 
results and 95% belong to Dr.Ansari.

These have been outrightly rejected appeals/complaints with 
realization of justice done to applicants by giving him opportunity 
to inspect the files(or with partial exemption).

In every decision,"As there is no denial of information, complainant 
is advised to seek inspection"  has been repeated.

Ironically,this does not ensure providing desired information held 
by public authority.Neither by inspection of making files available 
at his office nor merely replying to RTI application does not ensure 
desired information.

Recently, two decisions have been made by him on my second 
appeals.One for AICTE, which is not in his jurisdiction secondly 
giving notice to him for late reply rather than ensuring desired 
information.
-------------------------------------------
Decision No. 2710/IC(A)/2008
F. No. CIC/MA/A/2008/00647
Dated, the 30th June, 2008
Name of the Appellant : Shri Manoj Kumar Kamra
Name of the Public Authority : A.I.C.T.E.
Facts:
1. The appellant did not avail of the opportunity of personal 
hearing on 27.06.2008. The appeal is therefore examined on merit.
2. On perusal of the documents submitted by the appellant, the 
following is observed:
• The CPIO has not replied to application for information within the 
stipulated period of 30 days and that he has not furnished a point-
wise response with respect to each point of information asked for.
• The Appellate Authority has also not bothered to supply the 
information.
• Hence, this appeal before the Commission.
Decision:
3. The CPIO is held responsible for violation of section 7(1) of the 
Act as he has not replied to the application for information dated 
14.01.2008 (received on 22.01.2008) within 30 days. The application 
was replied on 28.03.2008. He is 1
therefore directed to explain as to why penalty of Rs. 8,250/- (Rs. 
250/- per day, w.e.f. 23.2.08 to 27.3.08, a delay of 33 days) should 
not be imposed on him. He should submit his explanation at the 
earliest and also appear for a personal hearing on July 24, 2008 at 
11.00 A.M., failing which penalty would be imposed.
4. The appeal is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
Name and address of parties:
1. Shri Manoj K. Kamra, 7B37, Near Church, JNV Nagar, Bikaner, 
Rajasthan.
2. Dr. Narendra Dev, Dy. Director & CPIO, All India Council For 
Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New 
Delhi-110001. (Ref. No.AICTE/RTI Cell/2008/47 Dt. 28.03.08).
---------------------------------------------------------
Please suggest how to get desired information rather than being 
happy over his socalled delay notice.

Regards
Manoj K.Kamra

Reply via email to