One of The Appellant, Shri Raghavendra Rao Was Present. On Behalf of The Respondent, The Following Were Present

Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/WB/A/2010/000279, 280, 281 & 283

Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Date of hearing
Date of decision
:
:
29 March 2011
29 March 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Vipin Kumar
Editor, Room No. 221,
Rajya Sabha Secretariat,
Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Bhardwaj
Smt. Nirupa Belwal
Shri Raghvendra Rao,
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Vice-Presidents Secretariat,
New Delhi.
CPIO, Rajya Sabha Secretariat,
Parliament House Annexe,
New Delhi.
One of the Appellant, Shri Raghavendra Rao was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
CIC/WB/A/2010/000279, 280, 281 & 283
(i) Shri Deepak Goyal, JS & AA,
(ii) Shri Prem Singh, DD,
(iii) Shri Sundip Misra, Assistant Director,
(iv) Shri Ashok Dewan,
(v) Shri Mahitab Singh,
(vi) Shri Pawan Singh
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. Four identical second appeals had been fixed for hearing today. Only
one Appellant out of the four appeared before us. The Respondents also
appeared. We heard their submissions.
3. In identical applications addressed to the CPIO, the Appellants had
sought some information regarding the acceptability of e-mail as a medium of
representation to the VP of India/Chairman, Rajya Sabha, the modalities for
meeting personally the VP/Chairman, Rajya Sabha and the information
regarding the availability of any forum where an employee of the Rajya Sabha
Secretariat can make a direct representation before the VP/Chairman, Rajya
Sabha. Although the CPIO had provided some information by himself and the
Appellate Authority had offered some further clarifications on these queries, the
Appellant submitted that the copies of the file notings relating to the manner in
which their representations had been considered and disposed of had not been
provided to them in their entirety. Besides, he also submitted that the CPIO did
not very clearly mention if an employee could send a representation through an
e-mail to the VP/Chairman, Rajya Sabha.
4. The Respondents clarified that all available information had already
been provided to the Appellants and the relevant file in which their
CIC/WB/A/2010/000279, 280, 281 & 283
representations had been dealt with was also shown to two of the Appellants
including the one present during the present hearing. It was further submitted
that later some pages were found to be missing from that file since the date of
inspection. On our request, the relevant file was shown to us and we found that
the pages from 11 to 44 were missing from it. We consider this to be a serious
matter. We feel that the loss of so many pages from the file should be enquired
into and responsibility fixed. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to bring this fact to
the notice of the competent authority within the Rajya Sabha Secretariat for him
to decide the manner and modality of enquiring into this matter. The outcome of
the enquiry shall be reported to the CIC within two months of receiving this
order.
5. In regard to the acceptability of the e-mail as a medium of making a
representation to the VP of India/Chairman, Rajya Sabha, we direct the CPIO of
the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to clarify this matter within 10 working days from
the receipt of this order based on the available instructions/guidelines in this
regard.
6. We understand that the representations filed by the Appellants have
since been considered by the competent authority and resolved. It is also noted
that as far as the Vice President's office is concerned, the CPIO had provided
complete and adequate information. Thus, there is no further information to be
given in this case other than the above. The appeals are disposed of
accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
CIC/WB/A/2010/000279, 280, 281 & 283
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this
Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/WB/A/2010/000279, 280, 281 & 283

One of The Appellant, Shri Raghavendra Rao Was Present. On Behalf of The Respondent, The Following Were Present

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

One of The Appellant, Shri Raghavendra Rao Was Present. On Behalf of The Respondent, The Following Were Present

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

One of The Appellant, Shri Raghavendra Rao Was Present. On Behalf of The Respondent, The Following Were Present

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Central Information Commission, New Delhi

File No.CIC/WB/A/2010/000279, 280, 281 & 283

You might also like