Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri Baldev Raj Bhisti vs Cantonment Board, Subathu, Mod on 15 January, 2009

Central Information Commission
Shri Baldev Raj Bhisti vs Cantonment Board, Subathu, Mod on 15 January, 2009
                    Central Information Commission
           Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01659-SM dated Nil
          Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)

                                                              Dated 15.01.2009

Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj Bhisti

Respondent:       Cantonment Board, Subathu, MOD

Appellant is not present inspite of notice.

On behalf of the Respondent, the following are present:

             (i)     Sh. Prit Pal Singh, C.E.O
             (ii)    Sh. L. R. Thakur, CPIO

In addition, Shri Ambar Dutt is present as a third party.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

2. The Appellant had requested the CPIO in his letter of 16.05.2007 seeking a
number of information on a variety of issues such as copies of Government
instructions on the entitlement of the Appellant to avail of holidays, confirmation
of whether the change in his designation was in order, action taken on his
complaint against another employee, copy of the medical report conducted by the
Cantonment Medical Officer in respect of Shri Amar Dutt and copies of many
other reports of the Cantonment. The CPIO, in his reply dated 15.06.2007,
provided the requisite information. The Appellant, not satisfied with the reply,
preferred an appeal before the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board
and the First Appellate Authority in his appeal dated 11.07.2007 which the
Appellate Authority disposed off in his order dated 07.08.2007. The Appellate
Authority dismissed his appeal on the grounds that he did not present himself
before him inspite of being given opportunity twice. The Appellant has now
approached the Commission in second appeal.

3. During the hearing, the Appellant was absent inspite of notice. We
carefully examined the request for information and the reply and information
given by the CPIO. We also heard the Respondents as also the third party
present. We note that the CPIO had provided him with detailed information in
respect of each item of information sought by him except his request for the copy
of the Medical Certificate of Shri Amar Dutt, a third party. We are satisfied that
the information provided is adequate and complete. Therefore, we do not
propose to give any direction to the CPIO for any further action.

4. With the above observations, the appeal is dispose off. 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