9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal is being heard in continuation of adjunct order of the Commission dated 7-12-2012. The identical applications in file no. CIC/SS/A/12/000796 & CIC/SS/A/12/000797 are being dealt with a common order. 2. The appellant submits that he is pressing only for penalty proceedings under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005. 3. The key issue for determination is whether the CPIO has delayed or denied the information to the appellant in such a manner as to make himself liable for penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act. 4. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 25-4-2011 addressed to the CPIO, Dept. of Revenue. The RTI application was transferred to the CPIO, CESTAT on 6-5-2011 under Section 6(3) of the Act. 5. The appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same file. 11. However, the appellant maintains that the information sought in this particular RTI was not provided to him. Decision : After hearing both the parties, the Commission is of the view that it is essential to determine whether the information has been provided to the appellant in compliance of the directions of the first appellate authority and if so whether there has been a considerable delay in providing the information as sought in the present RTI application dated 25-4-2011. In view of the above a show cause notice shall be issued to the CPIO of Dept. of Revenue at the relevant time to explain why a penalty of rupees two hundred and fifty not exceeding rupees twenty thousand shall not be imposed on him to cause a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the leave records of President, CESTAT was subsequently given to the appellant. 5. On the other hand, the appellant would submit that CPIO had offered him inspection vide letter dated 19-1-2012 i.e. after a delay of 190 days. On a query from the Commission as to whether he had received letter dated 1-7-2011 from the CPIO inviting him for inspecting the records, the appellant would answer in the affirmative. However, he would contend that the files inspected by him on various dates offered by the CPIO did not contain the leave records of President, CESTAT. 6. From the above narration, it is clear that CPIO had made offer of inspection vide letter dated 1-7-2011 only in regard to the leave record of Ms. Archana Wadhwa and n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
