Shri Prasanta Basu Ray vs Ordnance Factory Board, Ministry … on 18 May, 2009

0
100
Central Information Commission
Shri Prasanta Basu Ray vs Ordnance Factory Board, Ministry … on 18 May, 2009
                            Central Information Commission
                    No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00460-SM dated 27.11.2007
                   Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)

                                                                       Dated 18.05.2009
Appellant      :      Shri Prasanta Basu Ray

Respondent     :      Ordnance Factory Board, Ministry of Defence

The Appellant is not present, in spite of notice.

On behalf of the Respondent, Shri S.S. Naskar, Director, Ordnance Factory
Board, is present.

The brief facts of the case are as under.

2. The Appellant had, in his application dated 27 November 2007, requested the
CPIO for information regarding the action taken by the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB)
to implement the orders of the Supreme Court in a particular case. The CPIO replied
on 31 December 2007 and informed the Appellant that the said Supreme Court order
was under examination of the competent authority. In respect of the remaining
queries, the CPIO observed that those did not amount to information as defined in
Section 2(f) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and hence he was not obliged to
provide any information. Against this reply of the CPIO, the Appellant went before the
first Appellate Authority on 7 January 2008. The first Appellate Authority disposed of
the appeal on 24 January 2008 and upheld the orders of the CPIO. Not satisfied with
these orders, he has preferred a second appeal before the CIC.

3. The Appellant was not present in spite of notice. We heard the submissions of
the Respondent. The Respondent informed that the said Supreme Court order had
been indeed received around the time the application for information was received
and therefore the CPIO was right in informing that the order was under consideration.
He further submitted that the remaining two queries of the Appellant did not really
fall in the category of information as these were questions and did not refer to any
particular record or document as held by the Public Authority. It seems the OFB has
since implemented the said Supreme Court order. In these circumstances, we do not
find any fault in the reply of the CPIO or the orders of the first Appellate Authority.

No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00460-SM

4. The appeal is thus disposed off.

5. 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.

(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar

No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00460-SM

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *