TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t allowed the inspection of the concerned files. Shri Mohapatra, CPIO has already replied that both the files are available in the erstwhile Registry of IC(AD) now transferred to Registry of IC(YA). Inspection can be done by the RTI applicant with prior appointment. The CPIO, who is looking after the Registry of IC(YA) is directed to provide inspection of the files to the appellant within 15 working days from date of receipt of this order. - Appeal disposed of. - Appeal No. CIC/AA/A/2014/049 and CIC/CPIO/2013/1824 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2014 - Shri A.K. Dash, Additional Secretary First Appellate Authority Shri R.K. Jain, the Appellant. Shri Tarun Kumar, JS (Admn.) Nodal CPIO, M.K. Sharma, Registrar and T.K. Mohapatra, K.L. Das ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration, hearing and disposal of the Appeal/Complaints referred to in point (A) (B) above. Please provide inspection of the complete file even if contains parts information. (D) Please provide copies of all notesheets and correspondence pages of the RTI file in which this application is dealt with. 3. The appellant is aggrieved with the delayed response furnished by Shri K.L. Das, CPIO, in furnishing certified copies of the common order in the case of Shri C.J. Karira, which was treated as third party information by Shri K.L. Das, CPIO, and Shri Karira s consent was sought and on obtaining his consent, the information was provided after certain delay to the appellant. The appellant pointed out that Shri Karira while giving consen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormation for the simple reason that the same forms part of public documents under a special enactment, the RTI Act, 2005 which in itself promotes transparency. The Orders uploaded on the website of the CIC contain synopsis of all the applications and First Appellate orders as well and contain no personal information vis- -vis the applicants and hence the information sought by the Appellant already exists in the public domain. Hence the exemption invoking the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RT1 Act, 2005 could easily have been provided either as it is or at least after application of the provisions of the Section 10(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, neither of which has been done in the instant case. 4. The appellant submitted that in view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
