ADVOCATE VINOD CHAWADA Vs. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to the order dated 5-5- 2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed for want of prosecution.

(2.) THE brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner presented an application on 1-2-2008 (Annexure P-2) to the Public Information Officer, Ispat Mantralaya, Government of India, New Delhi, under the provisions of Section 6 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act, 2005'), wherein the petitioner applied for supply of certified copy of certain documents alongwith certain informations, as under:-

(3.) SHRI Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 (for short 'the Rule, 2005') provides for filing of an appeal and hearing of the appeal. Rule 7 of the Rules, 2005 provides that the appellant may opt not to be present and in that event, final decision may be taken on the basis of documents and after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondents. The respondent No. 1 committed serious error in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without examining the second appeal of the petitioner, by the impugned order dated 5-5-2009 (Annexure P-1).