CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001414/SG/14828
Appeal No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001414/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Hamzaa. A
C/o Shanu foot wear, A- Bazar
Port Blair, A & N Islands - 744101
Respondent : Mr. Sardar Singh
CPIO & Administrative officer,
Indian Council of medical Research
V Ramalingaswamy Bhawan, Ansari nagar,
New Delhi - 110029
RTI application filed on : 03/01/2011
PIO replied on : 19/01/2011
First Appeal filed on : 18/02/2011
First Appellate Authority order on : 25/02/2011
Second Appeal received on : 09/05/2011
Sl. Query Reply of PIO
1. Please provide the copy of entire file 1- Concerned PIO replied that recognition of
related to the processing of various associations of ICMR institutes/ centres as
1. RMRC Staff Welfare Association per RSA(1993) and put up to the competent
2. RMRC Employees Union. The authority for approval .Hence the information has
information been called for and the same would be provided.
The information pertains to the period 2. Letter No 16/60/2005- Admn II dated 21/12/2009
starting from the issue of ICMR letter No. is a general letter issued to all the Directors for
16/60/2005- Admn-II dates 21/12/2009. providing the required information.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Reply of the PIO was dissatisfactory and partial information was provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
According to the order of FAA the copies of notesheet of file related to recognition of RMRC Staff
Welfare association and RMRC Employees Union and relevant papers are sent.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information furnished by the PIO was not satisfactory and incomplete.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Hamzaa. A on video conference from NIC-Port Blair Studio;
Respondent: Mr. Sardar Singh, CPIO & Administrative officer;
The appellant admits that he has received certain information but there is some information
which has not been provided as mentioned in para-5 of his complaint. The commi9ssion is given a
copy of this to the PIO. The Appellant also states that the information to him earlier has not been
attested duly. The Commission warns all PIOs that if unattested copies sent to the Appellants, the
Commission will invoke Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed send all the information sent earlier alongwith the missing
information listed by the Appellant at para-5 to the Appellant free of cost by speed post
before 15 October 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
23 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (AM)