{"id":222832,"date":"2009-04-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009"},"modified":"2016-03-02T20:44:55","modified_gmt":"2016-03-02T15:14:55","slug":"dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Narender Shanker Pandey vs Ministry Of Home Affairs … on 1 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Dr. Narender Shanker Pandey vs Ministry Of Home Affairs … on 1 April, 2009<\/div>\n
                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                          Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/01478 dated 20.11.2007\n                             Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\n\nAppellant       -          Dr. Narender Shanker Pandey\nRespondent          -      Ministry of Home Affairs (Forensic Dep't)\n\n\nFacts<\/pre>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
     By an application of 21.11.06 Dr. N. S. Pandey, Asstt. Director (Blastics) of
\nChandigarh applied to the Chief Forensic Scientist, Chandigarh, Directorate of
\nForensic Sciences, New Delhi seeking the following information:\n<\/p>\n
         “1.   Who is senior most officer\/ division in-charge of the ballistics
\n               division as on date? Competent Authority who can appoint
\n               division in-charge?<\/p>\n
         2.    In case, Mrs. Asha Dhir, AD (Ball.) is senior most officer of
\n               ballistics division as per seniority list circulated by DFS vide
\n               No. 13\/13\/93-Adm dated 11th October, 2006, then what
\n               makes Mrs. Asha Dhir not to function as division in-charge?
\n               If Mrs. Asha Dhir has represented for taking over as division
\n               in-charge, the dates & how many times, she made her
\n               representation to whom and action taken on her
\n               representation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         3.    The NABL guidelines, which authorizes to appoint Technical
\n               Manager by keeping aside the hierarchy of the system.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         4.    The qualification of an officer who could be appointed as
\n               Technical Manager by violation of hierarchy of the system
\n               and gazette notification of such appointment, if any?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         5.    How far it is true that Mrs. Asha Dhir, AD (Ball) has never
\n               challenged or even made a slightest grievance of her
\n               transfer from ballistics division to physics division? A copy of
\n               her transfer order and\/ or substantiation in writing of verbal
\n               order issued by competent authority is also desired.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         6.    How Dr. S. K. Jain, AD (Ball) can supervise the work of
\n               another AD (Ball) working in the same rank and pay scale?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         7.    In absence of DR. S. K. Jain, AD (Ball), can an SSO (Ball)
\n               supervise the work of an AD (Ball)?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         8.    A copy of letter no. CFSL\/20\/4\/2004\/Estt-3547 dated
\n               5.10.2005 written by Director, CFSL, Chandigarh and action
\n               taken on his recommendations.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         9.    Copy of memos, similar issued to me, issued to six officers
\n               and their replied in connection with loss of camera from
\n               ballistics division of CFSL, Chandigarh.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                               1<\/span><\/p>\n
       10.    Copy of report of DR. S. K. Jain, AD (Ball) in connection with
\n             loss of camera from ballistics division of CFSL, Chandigarh
\n             based on which undersigned was asked for explanation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      11.    Copy of GFR Form No. 33 vide which the equipment SEM-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             EDXA was taken over jointly by DR. S. K. Jain and myself
\n             and the copy of noting on the office file pertaining to taking
\n             over the equipment SEX-EDXA.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
To this he received a response of 20.2.07 from Dr. M. S. Rao as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “Reply to point 1, 2 & 5:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Smt. A. Dhir is a senior most Assistant Director as per the seniority
\n      list of the Assistant Directors in the Ballistics Discipline. However,
\n      in IXth Five year plan period, she had opted to work with Shri A. K.
\n      Ganjoo, Dy. Director (Physics) on the creation of the image
\n      processing facility in the CFSL, Chandigarh. Accordingly, she was
\n      shifted to Phy. Div. on the approval of Dr. R. K. Tiwari, Ex-Chief
\n      Forensic Scientist, New Delhi. In Xth Five Year Plan also she had
\n      worked with Shri A. K. Ganjoo, DD (Phy.) on the plan project
\n      “Digital Water Marking”. After her shifting, Dr. S. K. Jain, A. D. is
\n      the senior most officer in the Division. This shifting is the
\n      prerogative of the Head of Department\/ Chief Executive of the
\n      Department in public interest.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Reply to point 3 & 4:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      As per the Quality Manual No. 01, Issue No. 08 (Sec. 4.1.5, Page-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      3) it is clearly mentioned that the Director can designate the officer
\n      as Technical Manager, who is well conversant with the methods
\n      and purpose of forensic examination. Also, the Director can
\n      nominate the Dy. Technical Manager to adequately support and
\n      maintain various activities of management system.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Reply to point 6:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Senior Officer can mark the work of the division of the junior officers
\n      of the division as per the Govt. Rules. In this case, DR. N. S.
\n      Pandey is junior to DR. S. K. Jain in the rank of Assistant Directors
\n      in the Ballistics Division. Accordingly, Dr. S. K. Jain, Asstt. Director
\n      (Ball.) can mark the cases to Dr. N. S. Pandey, Asstt. Director
\n      (Ball.). It is pertinent to mention here that the work of all the
\n      Assistant Directors (Ballistics), is presently, being supervised by the
\n      Director, CFSL, Chandigarh, directly.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Reply to point 7:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In the absence of DR. S. K. Jain, A. D. (Ballistics)-cum-Technical
\n      Manager (Ballistics), who is senior to Dr. N. S. Pandey, AD (Ball.)
\n      as per the NABL Guidelines the cases are to be marked to DR. N.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
       S. Pandey by the Director and not by the SSO (Ballistics)-cum-
\n      Deputy Technical Manager because his is junior to Dr. Pandey.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Reply to point 9 & 10:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Consequent upon the order of Inquiry by the Director, CFSL,
\n      Chandigarh, relating to the loss of Camera from Ballistics Division
\n      and recovery of the same thereafter, the order of the Inquiry was
\n      dropped.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Reply to point 11:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Copy of the ‘Certificate of transfer of charge’ in Form GFR-33 in
\n      respect of the laboratory of Scanning Electron Microscope coupled
\n      with Energy Dispersive X-ray Analysis System and automated
\n      detection of GSR Software package’ is enclosed herewith.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      As and when further information, if any, is received by this
\n      Directorate from CFSL, Chandigarh, the same will be provided to
\n      you immediately.’<\/p>\n
      This was followed by a representation of 26.2\/07 by Dr. Pandey addressed
\nto the CPIO reiterating his earlier request, to which he received a reply on 2.3.07
\nagain from CPIO Dr. M. S. Rao, as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             “Reply to Point 1:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In CFSL, Chandigarh, Deputy Director (Ballistics) is the senior most
\n      post in the Ballistics discipline. As mentioned in the nature of
\n      duties attached with the post, Deputy Director (Ballistics), in
\n      addition to his other duties, is to function as Head of the ballistics
\n      Division. Hon’ble President of India is the appointment authority in
\n      respect of Deputy Director (Ballistics).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “Reply to point 2 & 5:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The information sought by the applicant as per point 2 & 5 relates
\n      to personal information of Mrs. Asha Dhir, Assistant Director
\n      (Ballistics) CFSL, Chandigarh and has no relationship to any public
\n      activity or interest. Disclosure of this information may cause
\n      unwarranted invasion of the privacy of Mrs. Asha Dhir, Assistant
\n      Director (Ballistics). This type of information is exempted from
\n      disclosure u\/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, this
\n      information can not be disclosed to the applicant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Reply to point 3 & 4:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      As per the Quality Manual No. 01, Issue No. 08 (Sec 4.1.5, Page-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      3), it is clearly mentioned that the Director can designate the officer
\n      as Technical Manager, who is well conversant with the methods<\/p>\n
                                        3<\/span>
\n       and purpose of forensic examination. Also, the Director can
\n      nominate the Dy. Technical Manager to adequately support and
\n      maintain various activities of MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Reply to point 6 & 7:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      At present, three persons viz Mrs. Asha Dhir, DR. S. K. Jain and
\n      DR. N. S. Pandey are working as Assistant Director (Ballistics) in
\n      CFSL, Chandigarh. All these three officers are reporting directly to
\n      the Director, CFSL, Chandigarh. Question of supervision of work
\n      of another Assistant Director by DR. S. K. Jain, Assistant Director
\n      (Ballistics), working in the same rank and pay scale, does no arise.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In CFSL, Chandigarh, post of Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistics) is
\n      junior to that of Assistant Director (Ballistics). Therefore, Senior
\n      Scientific Officer (Ballistics) can not supervise the work of Assistant
\n      Director (Ballistics) under any circumstances.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Reply to Point 8, 9 & 10:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In terms of sections 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005 the information
\n      sought by the applicant in point 8, 9 & 10 of his above mentioned
\n      application, can not be provided to him.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Reply to point 11:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Photocopy of the notings on the office file pertaining to taking over
\n      the equipment SEM-EDXA is enclosed herewith as Annexure-I.” “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Still not satisfied, Dr. Pandey made a further representation on 4.4.07
\npointing out the deficiencies in the information received. Upon this he received
\nan initial response dated 24.4.07 from Sh. K. V. Ravi Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer
\nGr. I, seeking time to reply as Dr. M. S. Rao, CPIO was out of the country, and
\nthen received a response of 22.5.07 from CPIO Dr. M. S. Rao as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “Reply to point 2 & 5:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The information sought by the applicant as per point 2 & 5 relates
\n      to personal information of Mrs. Asha Dhir, Assistant Director
\n      (Ballistics) CFSL, Chandigarh and has no relationship to any public
\n      activity or interest. Disclosure of this information may cause
\n      unwarranted invasion of the privacy of Mrs. Asha Dhir, Assistant
\n      Director (Ballistics). This type of information is exempted from
\n      disclosure u\/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, this
\n      information can not be disclosed to the applicant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      As, the promotion of Smt. Asha Dhir, A. D. (Ball) has bearing on
\n      your career progress, you are informed that as per the records
\n      available in CFSL, Chandigarh, Smt. Asha Dhir, A. D. (Ball) had<\/p>\n
                                        4<\/span>
\n       submitted her representations dated 22.8.2000, 1.10.2001 and
\n      29.11.2001 regarding her promotion to the post of Deputy Director
\n      (Ballistics), which are enclosed as Annexure-I. Photocopy of the
\n      replies dated 8.11.2001 and 2.1.2002 in response to her
\n      representations are enclosed as Annexure-II<\/p>\n
               Reply to point 3 & 4:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      As per the Quality Manual No. 01, Issue No. 08 (Sec 4.1.5, Page-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      3), it is clearly mentioned that the Director can designate the officer
\n      as Technical Manager, who is well conversant with the methods
\n      and purpose of forensic examination. Also, the Director can
\n      nominate the Dy. Technical Manager to adequately support and
\n      maintain various activities of MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Reply to Point 8, 9 & 10:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In terms of reasons mentioned in sections 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act,
\n      2005 the information sought by the applicant in point 8, 9 & 10 of
\n      his above mentioned application, can not be provided to him.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Aggrieved, Dr. Pandey moved his first appeal before the Jt. Secretary (PM)
\n\/ First Appellate Authority on 12.6.07 concluding with the following request:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “I request you to kindly accept appeal as per section 18 (1) (e) of
\n      RTI Act 2005 and provide documents as requested and also allow
\n      for the perusal of the relevant files with a permission to take the
\n      extract in this case, if required, as prescribed in the RTI Act, 2005.
\n      There has already been an inordinate delay in handling this
\n      application (more than six months time) and also the documents
\n      provided have not been certified (as mentioned in Chapter-1:2 (j)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (ii) of RTI Act 2005.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Upon this he received an order from none other than the same Dr. M. S.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Rao, claiming that the application stands fully answered, as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “The definition of information, as it occurs, in Section 2 (f) of RTI
\n      Act, lays down the scope of the type of information a petitioner can
\n      seek. The underlying idea is clear that the applicant’s entitlement
\n      for information is only in respect of the categories of information
\n      mentioned in Sec. 2 (f). It is not open to the applicant to ask, in the
\n      guise of seeking information, questions to the CPIO about the
\n      nature and quality of actions of any officer. The RTI Act does not
\n      cast on the CPIO any obligation to answer queries, as in this case,
\n      in which the applicant attempts to elicit answers to the questions.
\n      The applicant’s right extends only to seeking information as defined
\n      in Sec. 2 (f). In view of this, and the decisions of the Central<\/p>\n
                                         5<\/span>
\n       Information Commission in similar Cases (CIC\/AT\/A\/2006\/00062
\n      dated 1.5.2006 and CIC\/AT\/A\/2006\/00045 dated 21.5.2006 (copies
\n      enclosed as Annexure-II)), the request of Dr. N. S. Pandey is not
\n      clear in terms of Sec. 2 (f) of RTI Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Here, it is worth mentioning that a plain reading of the petition
\n      makes it clear that you are more interested in contesting the actions
\n      of Director, CFSL, Chandigarh. The questions raised by you are
\n      more in the nature of allegations rather than seeking information.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In view of the above clarifications under various provisions of the
\n      RTI Act, your application stands fully answered”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Appellant’s prayer before us in his second appeal is as below:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “a.    On the advice of the program as well as under
\n             provisions of RTI Act 2005, second appeal of applicant
\n             may please be admitted and the case may be decided on
\n             merit and CPIO may be directed to provide required
\n             documents requested in the original application vide
\n             points 8, 9 & 10 made to CPIO on 22.11.2006.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      b.     As advised by the host of the program and under
\n             various provisions of the RTI Act 2005 suitable action &
\n             penalty may be imposed on CPIO for the reasons
\n             mentioned below:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             i.    for harassing me by not providing the documents
\n                   required for such a long period.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             ii.   for providing irrelevant documents,
\n             iii.  for not providing the certified copies of the
\n                   documents.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             iv.   For deciding my first appeal as Appellate
\n                   Authority flouting the provisions of RTI 2005 Act
\n                   knowing the fact that in the instant case he was
\n                   CPIO himself.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We subsequently received requests from appellant Dr. Pandey that instead
\nof being heard by videoconference in Chandigarh, he be allowed to appear
\npersonally before us in Delhi. The appeal was consequently heard on 1.4.2009.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The following are present:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant at CIC Studio, New Delhi
\n      Dr. N. S. Pandey
\nRespondents at NIC Studio, Chandigarh
\n      Dr. A. K. Ganjoo, Dy. Dir. (Physics) Dte. of Forensic Sciences.\n<\/p>\n
                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
        Sh. J. R. Sharma, Asstt. Dte. of Forensic Sciences
\nat CIC Studio, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
       Sh. D. Sharma, J.S. (PM), MHA
\n       Sh. R. S. Verma, Director, CFSL Chandigarh.\n<\/p>\n
       Sh. K.V. Ravi Kumar, SSO (F), DFS, MHA, New Delhi
\n       Sh. J. C. Sharma, PA, CFSL, Chandigarh.\n<\/p>\n
       Sh. S. C. Verma, Asstt. DFS, MHA, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
The following are the three issues before us:\n<\/p>\n
Issue. 1       Was the CPIO and FAA the same person?\nIssue 2        The reasons why appellant was not given an opportunity to inspect\nthe relevant files, as requested, and\nIssue 3        The grounds for application of sec. 8(1) (g) in seeking exemption\n<\/pre>\n
from disclosure of information sought at points 8, 9 & 10 of the original
\napplication.\n<\/p>\n
Issue 1: On this issue Shri R. S. Verma, Director CSFL Chandigarh submitted
\nthat indeed during the time that these applications were under process – he
\nreferred to the subsequent representations also as applications – Dr. Rao was
\npromoted as Appellate Authority and, therefore, Dr MS Rao did indeed hear the
\ncase as First Appellate Authority.\n<\/p>\n
Issue 2: On this issue respondent Shri Verma submitted that concerned
\ndocuments were not in the possession of the CSFL Chandigarh and had to be
\nobtained from elsewhere. The documents were sent to the CSFL on 4.1.07 but
\nwere only received on 25.1.07 after which response was sent on 22.2.07 to
\nappellant, thus accounting for the delay. Once these were obtained the requisite
\ndocuments were given to appellant Dr. Pandey.\n<\/p>\n
Issue 3:       Shri Verma submitted that the documents sought at Point 8, 9 & 10
\nwere found missing and were, therefore, not provided but the information
\ncontained therein has now been provided. At any rate these are documents<\/p>\n
                                        7<\/span>
\n concerning a third party and copies of the same have therefore been refused u\/s
\n8 (1) (g), as their disclosure could lead to conflict within the department<\/p>\n
         In his response appellant Dr. Pandey submitted that he had sought to pay
\nthe fees through cash while sending the original application which was returned
\nto him. He then visited Delhi in order to pay the fees by Postal Order on 6.12.07.
\nHe submitted that the first Appellate Authority is expected to be an officer senior
\nto the CPIO but in this case the same officer also heard the first appeal. Dr.
\nPandey refuted the claim that he had received the documents sought or their
\ncontents against Points 8, 9 & 10.               Even other documents received in the
\npiecemeal responses that he received through his various representations were
\nnot certified.\n<\/p>\n
                                       DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
         After having heard the parties and examined the records, the issues
\ndiscussed above are decided as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Issue 1:Sec. 19(1) of the RTI Act allows for little ambiguity. It reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
          “Sec. 19
\n          (1)    Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time
\n                 specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of
\n                 section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public
\n                 Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the
\n                 case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such
\n                 period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an
\n                 appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the
\n                 Central Public Information Officer or State Public
\n                 Information Officer as the case may be, in each public
\n                 authority 1 :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the
\n                     expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that
\n                     the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing
\n                     the appeal in time. ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
    Emphasis added<\/p>\n
                                                 8<\/span>
\n      It is, therefore, necessary that the appeal should have been heard by an
\nofficer senior in rank to the CPIO even though in the meantime the CPIO had
\nbeen designated as First Appellate Authority for administrative reasons.      We
\nwould, therefore, have been within our practice to now remand this appeal to the
\nFirst Appellate Authority, but as will be clear the issues before us are readily
\ndetermined based on the arguments already heard and, therefore, we have
\ndecided to decide the remaining two issues, as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Issue 2      In this case there is no further plea for inspection of documents but
\nonly for copies of certified documents which were required. The grounds for not
\nhaving been allowed inspection are at any rate specious.        Even though the
\ninspection of the file may not serve any purpose at this stage, at any rate it is
\nclear that the application made on 22.11.06 should have been replied by
\n21.12.06. Even were we to concede that the fee was received only on 6.12.06,
\nthe response had become due by 5.1.07. The response, therefore, is overdue
\nand in addition incomplete. Dr. M. S. Rao, Director cum Chief (Forensic
\nSciences), Directorate of Forensic Sciences, Chandigarh will now show cause
\nwhy he should not be penalized @ Rs. 250\/- a day from 25.1.07 the date on
\nwhich he received the request for information to 22.2.07 when he actually
\nsupplied this partial information to Dr. Pandey, amounting to Rs. 7000\/-. He may
\ndo this either in writing by 27.4.2009 or by personal appearance through
\nvideoconference in Chandigarh on 10.6.2009 at 4.30 p.m.<\/p>\n
Issue 3 Sec. 8(1) (g) is clear and reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “Sec. 8(1)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (g)    information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life
\n             or physical safety of any person or identify the source of
\n             information or assistance given in confidence for law
\n             enforcement or security purposes; “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In this case no argument has been even sought to be presented to
\nsubstantiate any threat to any person or exposure of a source of information or<\/p>\n
                                         9<\/span>
\n assistance given in confidence, and there is no question of law enforcement or
\nsecurity purpose but only departmental considerations.                    Copies of each of
\nthese documents, duly certified, will, therefore, be provided to appellant Dr.
\nPandey within ten working days of the date of receipt of this Decision
\nNotice.\n<\/p>\n
         From the above, as is also clear that the information not having been
\nsupplied in time, will now u\/s 7(6) be required to be provided free of cost. Besides
\nby failing to receive the initial fees even though these were paid in conformity
\nwith Government rules on the subject, the Directorate has compelled appellant
\nDr. Pandey to travel to Delhi. For this reason, compensation of Rs.2000\/ 2 – will
\nbe paid in order to cover the cost of Rail Transport from Chandigarh to Delhi and
\nstay for at least one day. This amount will also be paid to Dr. Pandey within ten
\nworking days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.\n<\/p>\n
         The appeal is therefore allowed. Costs will be as described. Announced in
\nthe hearing.\n<\/p>\n
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n1.4.2009<\/p>\n
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
\napplication and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n1.4.2009<\/p>\n
2<\/span>
\n    As on date 1st AC Train fare Rs. 800 + 800 + Local conveyance +Stay<\/p>\n
                                                    10<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Dr. Narender Shanker Pandey vs Ministry Of Home Affairs … on 1 April, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/01478 dated 20.11.2007 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant – Dr. Narender Shanker Pandey Respondent – Ministry of Home Affairs (Forensic Dep’t) Facts : By an application of 21.11.06 Dr. N. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-222832","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Narender Shanker Pandey vs Ministry Of Home Affairs ... on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Narender Shanker Pandey vs Ministry Of Home Affairs ... on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-02T15:14:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Narender Shanker Pandey vs Ministry Of Home Affairs … on 1 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T15:14:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3223,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Dr. Narender Shanker Pandey vs Ministry Of Home Affairs ... on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T15:14:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Narender Shanker Pandey vs Ministry Of Home Affairs … on 1 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr. Narender Shanker Pandey vs Ministry Of Home Affairs ... on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Narender Shanker Pandey vs Ministry Of Home Affairs ... on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-02T15:14:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Narender Shanker Pandey vs Ministry Of Home Affairs … on 1 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T15:14:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009"},"wordCount":3223,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009","name":"Dr. Narender Shanker Pandey vs Ministry Of Home Affairs ... on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T15:14:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-narender-shanker-pandey-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Narender Shanker Pandey vs Ministry Of Home Affairs … on 1 April, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222832","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=222832"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222832\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222832"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222832"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222832"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}