CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00222 dated 11.1.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Manoranjan Kumar
Respondent - Lok Sabha Secretariat
O R D E R:
In this appeal Shri Manoranjan Kumar of Kali Bari Marg, New Delhi has
prayed that “information requested should be provided”. That information was
sought through an application of August 4, 2007 that contained 25 questions
concerning the appointment of one Mr. Jai Nandan Goswami and addressed to
the CPIO Lok Sabha Secretariat, which appointment according to appellant was
made on the basis of a forged School Leaving Certificate. We find, however, that
we have in fact already dealt with this matter in File No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00861.
In our Decision Notice of 18.6.09, we had decided as follows:
“In light of the response received from the Lok Sabha Secretariat
reporting action taken on Shri Manoranjan Kumar’s application the
purpose of the appeal was to ascertain the satisfaction or otherwise
of the appellant to the information now provided. Since he has
opted not to attend it is assumed that he is, in fact, satisfied.
However, although the note of the Lok Sabha as quoted above has
given reasonable cause for the delay in responding to the RTI
application in the first instance, we find that this displays a
shortcoming in the system established in the Lok Sabha Secretariat
for servicing RTI applications. Additional Director Shri Y.M. Kandpal
has submitted that in fact this has also been noted by the RTI Cell
of the Lok Sabha Secretariat and remedial measures initiated to
streamline the system. With this there remains no further cause of
action for this Commission. The complaint is disposed of
accordingly.”
Although the case referred to in File No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00861 was
registered as a complaint and the present case as an appeal, the earlier case
has also been dealt with the orders of appellate authority Shri S. K. Sharma,
Addl. Secretary, Lok Sabha Secretariat in his order of 11.10.07 in first appeal
1
when the present case in a second appeal to the 1st appellate authority had been
moved before Shri S. K. Sharma, Addl. Secretary on 22.10.07. This was
dismissed on the grounds that the law did not provide for second appeal to the
same Appellate Authority. The present case, therefore, being a duplicate of a
case already decided upon, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
Announced. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
14.7.2009
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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
14.7.2009
2