Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/WB/C/2010/000015SM
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 8 June 2011
Date of decision : 8 June 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Kailash Nath Bhardwaj,
Flat No. 301G, Pocket 2,
Mayur Vihar Phase 1,
Delhi - 110 091.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan,
G.P.O. Complex, Block A, INA,
New Delhi - 110 023.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri V.K. Nanda, Advisor,
(ii) Shri Raj Kumar, Section Officer
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. Both the parties were present during the hearing and made their
submissions.
3. The Appellant had wanted to know about the action taken by the CVC on
the four matters included in the complaint made by him. The CPIO had
informed him that the CVC had forwarded his complaint to the LIC for taking
CIC/WB/C/2010/000015
further necessary action. At the level of the Appellate Authority though, it was
also decided to disclose the relevant file notings based on which the above
decision had been taken in the CVC. Consequently, the copies of those records
were also provided.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that the CVC had forwarded
his complaint to the very same people against whom he had complained. He
expressed his dissatisfaction at the manner in which the CVC had dealt with his
complaint. On the other hand, the Respondents submitted that the complaint
had been forwarded to the CVO of the LIC for further necessary action in terms
of the policy followed by the CVC in this regard and that no other action had
been taken at their end.
5. The CPIO, in this case, informed the Appellant about whatever action
had been taken by the CVC on the complaint filed by him. If the Appellant is not
happy with the action taken by the CVC, the CIC is not the forum to agitate that
matter because we do not have any powers to adjudicate on the quality of the
decision taken by any public authority; the CIC can only adjudicate if the
desired information has been disclosed or not. In this case, the CPIO has
truthfully informed the Appellant about whatever action had been taken by the
CVC. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the decision of the CPIO or
the Appellate Authority in this case.
6. The appeal is thus disposed of without any further orders.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
CIC/WB/C/2010/000015
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this
Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/WB/C/2010/000015