Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00031-SM dated 08.10.2007
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 05.12.2008
Appellant: Harshman Sharma
Respondent: Western Command, Indian Army, Ministry of Defence
Appellant not present, inspite of notice.
On behalf of the respondents, Lt. Col. A. Chanora was present:
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had approached the CPIO in the Western Command of the
Indian Army on 2 May 2007 seeking information about the status of the payment
of certain medical bills presented by his father before the competent authority.
The CPIO replied to him within the stipulated period and informed him that
those bills could be processed only after submission of certain documents. The
Appellant was not satisfied with this reply and approached the Appellate
Authority within the Western Command in first appeal. The Appellate Authority
decided his case on 12 July 2007 and held that his father’s medical bills could be
processed only after the necessary documentation was completed and if some
bills had been passed in the past without such documentation, it was a special
case which, at this stage, could not be quoted as a precedence. The Appellant, not
happy with this order, has approached the Commission in second appeal.
3. Since the Appellant was absent in spite of notice and the Respondent was
present, we decided to go ahead with the hearing. In his original application for
information, the Appellant had sought information on the status of the bills that
his father had presented to the competent authority for payment. We find that
the CPIO had informed him about the need for submitting a few necessary
documents before those bills could be processed. Instead of completing the
documentation as advised, the Appellant has approached the Commission for
relief. The Commission’s responsibility under the Right to Information Act is
limited to ensuring that the complete information sought is provided to the
Appellant within the stipulated period. If there is any grievance with regard to the
non-payment of a bill by the competent authority, this Commission can hardly
help. We note that the CPIO had, within the stipulated period, provided him with
the right advice on the status of his father’s bills, namely, that only if he furnished
certain documents, then his father’s bills would be processed. The Appellate
Authority had also concurred. In view of the reply given by the CPIO, not denying
the information but advising the Appellant about the right course of action, we do
not think there is any merit to continue with this appeal and we reject the appeal.
4. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(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.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar