9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aft order which was signed by the Appellate Authority. This clearly demonstrates non-application of mind on the part of Appellate Authority. Hence, this order cannot be allowed to stand and is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority with the direction to decide afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant - Decided in favour of appellant. - File No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000883/LS - - - Dated:- 8-8-2013 - Shri M.L. Sharma, J. Shri R.K. Jain, the Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Under Secretary (CPIO), for the Respondent. ORDER Heard today dated 8-8-2013. Appellant present. The Department is represented by Shri Vijay Kumar, Under Secretary (CPIO). 2. In the RTI application da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provide the list of all files relating to GSTN and SPV. (K) Please provide inspection of all files, documents, records and correspondence relating to SPV. 3. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 19-11-2012 wherein he had offered inspection of the relevant records to the appellant. During the hearing, the appellant concedes that he took the inspection and thereafter, as per the request of CPIO, had deposited fee of Rs. 1,574/- with the CPIO for supply of certain documents. He also submits that the CPIO did provide him 367 pages of documents as against his requirement of 787 pages and, thus, did not supply 420 pages requisitioned by him. The matter, however, does not end there. The appellant had filed an appeal before the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late Authority directed to put up a draft as per his directions in his note. (vii) On 7th February, 2013 the draft order was put up to the Appellate Authority. (viii) On 7th February, 2013 the Appellate Authority signed the order. 5. It is the appellant s contention that by CPIO s own admission, the draft order was put up by him before the Appellate Authority, signifying non-application of mind on the latter s part. 6. It is pertinent to mention that both the CPIO and the AA passed the impugned orders in their quasi-judicial capacity as distinguished from their administrative capacity. Both the authorities are mandated to apply their mind while taking a decision. They are not expected to pass mechanical orders. Nor can Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
