USHA AJAY SINGH Vs. M.P.INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms. Ankita Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not at fault to cause delay in dissemination of information in her capacity as Public Information Officer and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Commission vide order dtd. 26/3/2009 calls for interference.

(2.) On perusal of order dtd. 26/3/2009, Annexure P-13, it is evident that learned Information Commissioner has taken this aspect into consideration that vide application dtd. 11/4/2007 under the R.T.I. Act applicant Ashutosh Verma had sought certain information in regard to the financial years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 as to supply of the details and the progress of the work assign to the registered labour or other Samities for the purpose of development.

(3.) Information regarding such institutions along with copy of the their registration and the post bearers was also sought. At point No.3, information was sought as to whether non-tribal registered or other institutions can be given work in the department? and if yes, then the copy of the order of the State.