CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000340/7282
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000340
Appellant : Mr. V.P.Jain
B-1/23, Sector-G, Janakipuram,
Lucknow - 226021
Respondent : Mr. B. S. Mirge
Public Information Officer & PRO
Mahatma Gandhi Antarashtriya Hindi
Vishwvidyalaya, Panchtilaa,
Wardha, Maharashtra - 442001
RTI application filed on : 06/10/2009
PIO replied : 27/10/2009
First Appeal filed on : 16/11/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not enclosed
Second Appeal Received on : 03/02/2010
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 03/03/2010
Hearing Held on : 30/03/2010
Information Sought:
Appellant sought information on letters-
(A). Sthaa./2038/2009/MGAHV dated 10-09-2010
(B). 27/2008-09/349/MGAHV/457 dated 27-08-2009
On the following points
1. Which of the above mentioned documents is taken as authoritative, true and proper document
containing true information, as both contradicts the information provided in each other.
2. If document B is taken as falsely fabricated document containing false information, please
inform the particular names of PIO and deemed PIO's who had supplied such false information
in document B, for filling complaint against such officer concerned u/s 20(1) and 20(2).
3. If document A is containing false information, please inform the date, when which shall be
withdrawn. If not then provide the names of the officers with their addresses, who were involved
in issuing the official note mentioned at document A.
PIO's Reply:
"Document 'A' and 'B' both are correct, true and authenticated."
Grounds for First Appeal:
The information was not provided as was sought by the Appellant.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not enclosed.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
No information was provided by FAA in spite of clear representation by the Appellant.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. V.P.Jain;
Respondent: Mr. B. S. Mirge, Public Information Officer & PRO;
The PIO has provided the infor4matnio based on the information sought by the
Appellant. Query-2 & 3 of the Appellant does not seek information but ask about certain
hypothetical situations. The appellant states that he would like attested photocopies of the
documents ‘A’ & ‘B’ and a statement from the PIO as to the people who have signed or initialed
these documents.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information as directed above to the Appellant
before 10 April 2010.
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
30 March 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)ASH