Dear Rangarajan, there is a little confusion to be clarified which is whether the PIO asked the proof of your citizenship. Though you have written identification proof but I am still asking for further clarification to clear the issue further.
From: Mathre Rangarajan <rangajan@yahoo.com>
To: Rangarajan Mathre <rangajan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2012 4:30 PM
Subject: [rti_india] Order of Central Information Commission - for info [1 Attachment]
To: Rangarajan Mathre <rangajan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2012 4:30 PM
Subject: [rti_india] Order of Central Information Commission - for info [1 Attachment]
IN my RTI activity, I got the following reply, which is self explanatory:-
In the Central Information Commission
atNew DelhiFile No; CIC/AD/C/2011/001736Date of Decision : Jan, 11, 2012.Parties:ComplainantMr. M RangarajanB 2-301, Sriram Spandhana, CheMaghatta Village,Bangalore 560037 KarnatakaRespondentPIO,M/s. Braithwaite and Company Ltd. Ministry of Railways5, Hide Road,Kolkata - 700 043Information Commissioner(s) Mrs. Annapurna DixitPage 2In the Central Information Commission
atNew DelhiFile No: CIC/AD/C/2011/001736ORDERBackground1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dated 10.09.2011 seeking information aboutretirement benefits and pension scheme granted to retired employees and requested to be furnished with copies of documents indicating retirement benefits, relevant office orders to that effect, pension scheme, instructions in the form of office orders issued for utilization of Fund created for the welfare of retired employees and some other related information in a tabular form indicating statistical utilization of the said fund during the past two years, The S.O. from the Braithwaite Company responded by a letter dated 14.09.2011 seeking identification proof of the Applicant.2. Aggrieved with the response of the Company, the Applicant approached, the CentralInformation Commission with the current Complaint dated 22.09.2011 narrating theevents which led to the filing of the instant Complaint.Decision3. The facts of the case indicate clearly that the response of the Respondent Company isnot in keeping with the provisions nor the spirit of the RTI Act. There is no provision in the RTI Act to seek identification of a citizen who seeks information from any Public Authority. The PIO of the Company is warned not to seek such identification in future u/s 3 of the RTI Act, which stipulates that all citizens shall have the Right to Information, as it would be construed by the Commission as deemed denial.4. Since the Appellant has not exhausted the first Appellate channel available to him forseeking information and has approached the Commission directly, the case is being remanded back to the First Appellate Authority directing him to treat the complaint as a first appeal and to take a decision on the matter by issuing a speaking order. The PIO may forward the case along with a copy of this Order to the concerned First Appellate Authority within 5 days of receipt of this order.5. The case is disposed on the above terms.(Annapurna D)Information CommissionerAuthenticated true copy:/(G.Subramanian)
Deputy RegistrarPage 3Cc:Mr. M RangarajanB 2-301, Sriram Spandhana, Cheflaghatta Village,Bangalore - 560 037 Karnataka2. PIO,M/s. Braithwaite and Company Ltd. (with a copy of the case)Ministry of Railways5 Hide Road, Kolkata - 700 0433. Officer in Charge, NIC
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment