Central Information Commission, New Delhi

File No.CIC/WB/A/2009/000956-SM
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Date of hearing
Date of decision
:
:
1 March 2011
1 March 2011
Name of the Appellant : Smt. Anita Chhabra
W/o. Shri Rakesh Kumar Chhabra,
H.No. 19, Type 3, Sector 1,
Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Parliament of India,
Rajya Sabha Secretariat,
Parliament House/Annexe,
New Delhi 110 001.
The Appellant was present along with Shri Rakesh Kumar Chhabra.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri Deepak Goyal, JS & AA,
(ii) Shri A.K. Singh, Director & CPIO,
(iii) Shri Prem Singh, DD
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. Both the parties were present during the hearing and made their
submissions.
3. The Appellant had asked for a copy of the diary register of the office of
the Secretary General for the years 2006 and 2007 and the copy of the similar
register maintained in the office of the OSD. Although the CPIO had provided
some information, the Appellant was not satisfied with the correctness of the
information and had alleged that vital information had been suppressed. On the
CIC/WB/A/2009/000956
other hand, the Respondents submitted that the relevant records had already
been inspected by the Appellant and that nothing was suppressed. They also
informed that almost a similar matter had been considered by the CIC earlier in
the appeal number CIC/WB/A/2007/001566 and disposed of in the order dated
18 May 2009 and that the CIC had found that no information had been
wrongfully withheld by the CPIO.
4. Be that as it may, we now direct the CPIO to provide the following
additional information to the Appellant:
i) invite the Appellant along with her representative on any mutually
convenient date within 15 working days from the receipt of this order in
order to inspect the diary register in its entirety and to obtain copies of
those entries that are relevant to her queries;
ii) confirm in a sworn affidavit that the communication from the Chief
Welfare Officer, DOPT, though received in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat
and marked to various levels, was now not traceable anywhere.
5. The Appellant pointed out that her name had been wrongly printed on
the notice issued by the CIC. Indeed, her name has been wrongly printed and it
is regretted. The staff of the Registry must be more careful and should not
commit such avoidable errors.
6. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
CIC/WB/A/2009/000956
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/2009/000956