2013 (3) TMI 78

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent. [Order]. - The Appellant was present in person. On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Rajesh Nagpal, U.S., was present. 2. Both the parties were present during the hearing and made their submissions. 3. In his RTI application, the Appellant had sought, in all, four items of information relating to the appointment of the Indirect Tax Ombudsman. The CPIO of the Cabinet Secret....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llate Authority had not given him an opportunity of hearing although he had specifically requested for that. The Appellant is right that the CPIO in the Cabinet Secretariat did not transfer the RTI application within five days of receiving it as per the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Consequently, the Appellant received the information much beyond....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earing to the Appellant when he had asked for it specifically. For future, he must note that whenever any Appellant wants personal hearing, he should be provided an opportunity before the final order is passed. 6. The CPIO in the office of the Establishment Officer had provided some information to the Appellant but had not given access to the file noting in the said file. The Appellant sub....