Category: Central Information Commission

Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Brahampal Singh vs Ministry Of Information And … on 19 January, 2011

/ | Leave a Comment

Central Information Commission Mr.Brahampal Singh vs Ministry Of Information And … on 19 January, 2011 In the Central Information Commission  at New Delhi File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001773 Date  of Hearing :  January 19, 2011 Date of Decision :  January 19, 2011 Parties: Applicant Shri Brahmpal Singh H.No.D­1/608 Street No.7­C Ashok Nagar Shahdara Delhi 110 093 The Applicant was present during the hearing. Respondents Prasar Bharati O/o Chief engineer (NZ) AIR & Doordarshan Jamnagar House Shahjahan Road New Delhi Represented by :  Shri Binod Kumar, Dealing Asst. Information Commissioner :   Mrs. Annapurna Dixit ___________________________________________________________________ Decision Notice The Commission directs the PIO to provide a copy of the Appellate Authority's order to the  Appellant and also  to allow inspection of TA records for the year 2009 by the Appellant on a mutually convenient date and time  and the Appellant  to cull out the information he requires.  Alternately copies of selected bills required by the  Appellant may be provided to him upto hundred pages  free of cost. . In the Central Information Commission at New Delhi File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001773 ORDER Background […]

Read more »

Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Sandeepmehta vs Ministry Of Railways on 23 May, 2011

/ | Leave a Comment

Central Information Commission Mr.Sandeepmehta vs Ministry Of Railways on 23 May, 2011 In the Central Information Commission  at New Delhi File No: CIC/AD/C/2010/001345 Date of Decision :  May 23, 2011 Parties: Applicant Dr.Sandeep Mehta DMO/RCF/KXH R/o 83­B, Type IV RCF/Kapurthala Punjab Respondents The Public Information Officer Northern Railway O/o Chief Works Manager Jagadhri Workshop Jagadhri Haryana Information Commissioner :   Mrs. Annapurna Dixit ___________________________________________________________________ In the Central Information Commission at New Delhi File No: CIC/AD/ C/2010/001345 ORDER Background 1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.1.7.10 with the PIO, RCF, Kapurthala seeking information  against four points with regard to insurance business run by the Medical Supdt. Dr.Moolnarain’s wife,  Mrs. Neeta Verma.   On receipt of the application, a few days later, the PIO, RCF transferred the  application to Northern Railway HQ vide his letter dt.3.7.10 who in turn transferred the same to PIO,  Jagadhari Workshop vide letter dt.5.7.10.   Shri Rajiv Bajaj, PIO replied on 29.7.10 requesting the  Applicant to deposit Rs.1586/­ towards supply of 793 pages of information.   The Applicant filed a  complaint dt.Nil before CIC stating that he had approached the Appellate Authority for waiver of the  fee but the same was rejected. Decision 2. […]

Read more »

Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Fidaali Dawood Kadiwala vs Bank Of Baroda on 15 July, 2011

/ | Leave a Comment

Central Information Commission Mr.Fidaali Dawood Kadiwala vs Bank Of Baroda on 15 July, 2011 Central Information Commission, New Delhi File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/001158 & 1159 Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section  (19) Date of hearing : 15 July 2011 Date of decision : 15 July 2011 Name of the Appellant  : Shri Fidaali Dawood Kadiwala, Shop No. 137, Commercial Complex, New Sardar Market, Puna Kumbhariya  Road, Surat City Shri Dilipbhai Vallabhbhai Kanani Shop No. 19, Commercial Complex, New Sardar Market, Puna Kumbhariya  Road, Surat City. Name of the Public Authority   : CPIO, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Surat Region, 3rd Floor,  Saifee Bldg. Nanpura, Dutch Road,  Surat - 395 001. Both the Appellant's were not present in spite of notice. On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Ajit Tripathi was present. Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra 2. We heard both these cases together since the subject matter in both  these appeals is identical. In spite of notice, the Appellants did not report in the  NIC studio at Surat. However, the Respondent was present there on behalf of  the bank and made his submissions. 3. In   two  identical  applications,  […]

Read more »