STATE Vs. NODAL CPIO, CIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts of the case : Shrihas filed two First Appeals; first appeal vide his letter dated 13 -11 -2013, diarised in the Commission on 14 -11 -2013 and received in the office of FAA on 18 -11 -2013 against the CPIO reply dated 8 -11 -2013 in response to his RTI application dated 9 -10 -2013. His second appeal is dated 22 -11 -2013, diarised in the Commission on 22 -11 -2013 and received in the office of FAA on 25 -11 -2013 against the response of CPIO vide letter dated 8 -11 -2013 in response to his RTI application dated 9 -10 -2013 read with inspection note No. 559, dated 18 -11 -2013. Notice was issued for hearing on 11 -12 -2013 at 1430 hrs. when Nodal CPIO was not present. The Nodal CPIO was directed to be present during the hearing scheduled on 11 -12 -2013 at 1430 hrs. vide notice dated 26 -11 -2013. However, a note has been received from him informing that he would not be participating in the hearing. A reply to the note has been sent to Nodal CPIO separately. During the hearing on 11 -12 -2013, the appellant submitted that Shri Pankaj KP Shreyaskar, Joint Secretary and Nodal CPIO was not present and he requested that the matter be heard in presence of the Nodal CPIO as there are material issues where the inputs from the Nodal CPIO are required. The appellant also requested that his Appeal dated 22 -11 -2013 arising out of the same RTI application may also be heard along with this appeal as the subject matter is same.

(2.) IN view of the specific submissions by the appellant to defer the appeal hearing so that the Nodal CPIO can participate, the hearing was postponed to 13 -12 -2013 at 1130 hr. when both the appeals mentioned at paras 1 and 2 would be heard. The appellant was informed accordingly. Nodal CPIO was directed to attend the hearing on the above date and time.

(3.) THE matter was heard on 13 -12 -2013 when both the Nodal CPIO and the appellant were present, Shri S.K. Rabbani, Dy. Secy. (Admn.). and CPIO, Shri Rakesh Sharma, former CPIO and Shri M.K. Sharma, Registrar were also present. Decision with reasons: