CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001490/8599
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001490
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Ms. Subhadra
B-32, G.F., LIG Flats,
GTB Enclave, New Delhi-93.
Respondent : Dr. Sumant Sinha
Public Information Officer & Senior Orthopedic Surgeon
O/o Dy. Medical Superintendent
Government of N.C.T. of Delhi
9, Metcalf Road, Sushruta Trauma Centre,
New Delhi-54.
RTI Filed on : 30/12/2009 PIO replied : 30/01/2010 First appeal filed on : 02/02/2010 First Appellate Authority Ordered on : 30/03/2010 Second Appeal received on : 31/05/2010 S.No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Whether the Appellant’s name was included in the license issued by the Yes.
Drug Controller for running a Blood Bank.
2. If yes, then whether the Appellant is considered an important and Information sought is not
integral part of the same. covered under Section 2(f)
of the RTI, Act.
3. If yes, then whether it was considered important to provide the As above.
Appellant with an official mobile phone connection under the CUG
Scheme.
4. If not, then whether the Appellant should withdraw his name from the As above.
Blood Bank license.
5. If yes, then the reasons why the Appellant was not provided with a As above.
CUG connection.
6. The period for which the Appellant would have to use his own hard As above.
earned money to pay the mobile bills which were used for official
purposes.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information had been provided by the PIO.
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order:
Disposed the appeal filed by appellant upheld the decision of the PIO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete information was provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Dr. Sumant Sinha, Public Information Officer & Senior Orthopedic Surgeon;
The PIO has provided the complete information and has properly stated that the other points
mentioned by the appellant do not constitute information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
What is sought is not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
19 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ND)