Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    Chief Information Commissioner: Shri Satyananda Mishra: CIC/WB/C/2010/000198 SM

    Uploaded by

    Satish Mishra
    The appellant had requested information about the progress of an inquiry made regarding his 1985 petition to the Ministry of Commerce. The CPIO responded that records of petitions from 1985 were no longer available, as the retention period was only one year, and advised submitting a new petition. At the hearing, the respondent reiterated that records from 1985 had been destroyed per the record retention schedule. As the relevant records no longer existed, the CPIO could not provide any information. Therefore, the Commission disposed of the appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Chief Information Commissioner: Shri Satyananda Mishra: CIC/WB/C/2010/000198 SM

    Uploaded by

    Satish Mishra
    21 views2 pages
    The appellant had requested information about the progress of an inquiry made regarding his 1985 petition to the Ministry of Commerce. The CPIO responded that records of petitions from 1985 were no longer available, as the retention period was only one year, and advised submitting a new petition. At the hearing, the respondent reiterated that records from 1985 had been destroyed per the record retention schedule. As the relevant records no longer existed, the CPIO could not provide any information. Therefore, the Commission disposed of the appeal.

    Original Description:

    CIC_WB_C_2010_000198-SM_M_77911

    Original Title

    CIC_WB_C_2010_000198-SM_M_77911

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellant had requested information about the progress of an inquiry made regarding his 1985 petition to the Ministry of Commerce. The CPIO responded that records of petitions from 1985 were no longer available, as the retention period was only one year, and advised submitting a new petition. At the hearing, the respondent reiterated that records from 1985 had been destroyed per the record retention schedule. As the relevant records no longer existed, the CPIO could not provide any information. Therefore, the Commission disposed of the appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    21 views2 pages

    Chief Information Commissioner: Shri Satyananda Mishra: CIC/WB/C/2010/000198 SM

    Uploaded by

    Satish Mishra
    The appellant had requested information about the progress of an inquiry made regarding his 1985 petition to the Ministry of Commerce. The CPIO responded that records of petitions from 1985 were no longer available, as the retention period was only one year, and advised submitting a new petition. At the hearing, the respondent reiterated that records from 1985 had been destroyed per the record retention schedule. As the relevant records no longer existed, the CPIO could not provide any information. Therefore, the Commission disposed of the appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Central Information Commission, New Delhi

    File No.CIC/WB/C/2010/000198-SM
    Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
    Date of hearing
    Date of decision
    :
    :
    9 January 2012
    6 March 2012
    Name of the Appellant : Shri Banwari Lal Joshi
    A/52, Subhash Nagar,
    Malan, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
    Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Rajya Sabha Secretariat,
    Parliament House/ Annexe,
    New Delhi 110 001.
    The Appellant was not present.
    On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
    (i) Shri Shashi Bhushan, Joint Director,
    (ii) Shri Ashok K. Sahoo, DD (Petitions),
    (iii) Shri Prem Singh, DD (RTI)
    Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
    2. We had heard this case on 9 January 2012 but had not passed any
    order at that time. The Appellant had not turned up for the hearing in spite of
    notice. The Respondents were present and had made their submissions.
    3. The Appellant had wanted to know about the progress in the enquiry
    made on his petition dated 29 November 1985 by the Ministry of Commerce.
    CIC/WB/C/2010/000198-SM
    The CPIO had informed him that the records relating to the petitions received in
    the year 1985 were no longer available since the retention period for such
    records was only one year. He had advised the Appellant to furnish a fresh
    petition. Instead of approaching the first Appellate Authority against this order,
    the Appellant has directly approached the CIC.
    4. The Respondent reiterated that all records relating to petitions received
    way back in 1985 had been weeded out long back and that there was no record
    relating to this particular petition any longer available with the Rajya Sabha. We
    carefully considered the submissions made by the Respondents. Indeed, if the
    relevant records are no longer available and have been weeded out as per the
    record retention schedule followed by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, the CPIO
    cannot be expected to report anything on that petition. There is simply no
    information to be disclosed.
    5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
    6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
    (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/C/2010/000198-SM

    You might also like