Category: Central Information Commission

Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Satya Prakash Mishra vs Ministry Of Railways on 2 August, 2011

/ | Leave a Comment

Central Information Commission Mr.Satya Prakash Mishra vs Ministry Of Railways on 2 August, 2011 In the Central Information Commission  at New Delhi                                                                                File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001084         Date  of Hearing     :  August 2, 2011 Date of Decision     :  August 2, 2011 Parties: Applicant    Shri Satya Prakash Mishra Advocate R/o Sector K.B - 1/55, Aliganj Lucknow. Applicant was  heard through Audio. Respondent(s) Ministry of Railway ED(PG) & PIO Railway Board Rail Bhawan New Delhi. Represented by   :  Shri Deomani, Dy CCM/C, Northern Railway Shri Kranti Kumar, Deemed PIO, Railway Board Shri Dandeswar Thakuria, N F Railway Ms T R Roaz, S Rly Shri  Ramjayam, S C Rly Shri Bhattacharjee, Eastern Rly Shri Vinod K Samuel, APIO, Rly Board. Information Commissioner :   Mrs. Annapurna Dixit ___________________________________________________________________ In the Central Information Commission  at New Delhi                                                                      File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001084 ORDER Background 1. The RTI Application dated  30.11.2010 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, Ministry of Railways,  […]

Read more »

Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Shiv Kumar Gupta vs Canara Bank on 18 May, 2011

/ | Leave a Comment

Central Information Commission Mr.Shiv Kumar Gupta vs Canara Bank on 18 May, 2011 Central Information Commission, New Delhi File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000874 Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section  (19) Date of hearing : 18 May 2011 Date of decision : 18 May 2011 Name of the Appellant  : Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta C/o. Smt. Neha H L, RC Barrack No. 3, Room No.25, Chembur Colony, Mumbai. Name of the Public Authority   : CPIO, Canara Bank, Legal Section, Recovery Wing, Head Office, 112, JC Road, Bangaluru - 560 002. On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Hari P.V., Senior Manager was  present. Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra 2. We had heard this case on the last occasion on 10 February 2011. In  our order dated 14 February 2011, we had directed that the relevant officer  from the legal department of the Bank should appear before us and explain his  role and responsibility in both the delaying and denying the information in this  case. The brief facts of this case are as under. 3. The Appellant in this case had raised a large number of queries in his  RTI application, mostly in the form of questions on a variety of matters. The  CPIO had consulted the legal department which had advised that since the  Appellant   had   raised   […]

Read more »

Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Samir Kumar Das vs Ministry Of Railways on 29 April, 2011

/ | Leave a Comment

Central Information Commission Mr.Samir Kumar Das vs Ministry Of Railways on 29 April, 2011 In the Central Information Commission  at New Delhi File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000383 Date  of Hearing     :  April 29, 2011 Date of Decision     :  April 29, 2011 Parties: Applicant Shri Samir Kumar Das Rly Qtr No. 145/2,  Accounts Colony Chakradarpur West Singhbhum, Jharkhand - 833102. Applicant  was present. Respondent(s) South Eastern Railway Divisional  Railway Manager's Office Chakradharpur Division Chadradharpur. Represented by    : Shri Subodh  Vishwarkar Information Commissioner :   Mrs. Annapurna Dixit ___________________________________________________________________ Decision Notice As given in the decision  In the Central Information Commission  at New Delhi File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000383 ORDER Background        1. The RTI Application dated  19.5.2010 by the Applicant with the PIO, S.E Railway, Chakradarpur.  He  wanted to know whether he is eligible to get dual charge allowance and also sought the Rly Board Guidelines  or order related to the same. Not receiving any reply from the PIO he filed  his  first appeal on 27.7.2010.  The  Appellate Authority replied on 8.10.2010   stating that the Applicant has not specified about the information  sought by him and that instead has  asked him whether he  is eligible for dual charge allowance or not which is  […]

Read more »