Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri T. Ravishankar vs Indian Air Force, Ministry Of … on 23 April, 2009

Central Information Commission
Shri T. Ravishankar vs Indian Air Force, Ministry Of … on 23 April, 2009
                          Central Information Commission
               Appeal No.CIC/WB/C/2008/00834-SM dated 28.07.2008
                 Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)


                                                                  Dated: 23 April 2009

Complainant           :      Shri T. Ravishankar

Respondent            :      Indian Air Force, Ministry of Defence

The Complainant was not present.

On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:



       (i)     Wg. Cdr. T. Sajan, CPIO, Air Headquarters
       (ii)    Sq. Ldr. G. Kaushisa, DJAG (Air)
       (iii)   Shri V.K. Pandey, AFRO
       (iv)    Wg. Cdr. Ajit K., AFRO
       (v)     Shri V.S. Kadian, AFRO

       The brief facts of the case are as under.



2. The Complainant had, in his application dated 28 July 2008, requested

the CPIO for some information regarding one Master Warrant Officer named S

Muthiah. The CPIO replied on 5 August 2008 and informed him that his

application could not be processed for want of full details such as the service

number, trade, and the unit of posting of the said officer and advised the

Complainant to submit a fresh application with all the details and the

particulars along with the application fee. It is noted that instead of going back

to the CPIO with a fresh application as advised or approaching the first

Appellate Authority with an appeal, the Complainant has directly come before

the CIC seeking relief.

CIC/WB/C/2008/00834-SM

3. During the hearing, the Complainant was not present in spite of notice.

The Respondent was present and submitted that the Complainant had not given

full details and particulars about the officer about whom he was seeking a

number of information and in the absence of such particulars, it was not

possible for the CPIO even to identify the officer concerned much less decide

whether the information sought could be given at all. We tend to agree with

the Respondent and find no reason to interfere with the advice given by the

CPIO. The Complainant’s application was rather very vague and the information

sought was neither clear nor specific. If the Complainant is still interested in

getting some information in this regard, we would like to advise him to

approach the CPIO once again with a fresh application giving full

details/particulars about the officer concerned and also specifying the exact

information he would want to know.

4. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed off.

5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Satyananda Mishra)
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)
Assistant Registrar

CIC/WB/C/2008/00834-SM