2015 (2) TMI 1065

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7-2014, as the desired information was not provided. 4.      First Appellate Authority (FAA), on 26-08-2014, upheld the decision of CPIO. 5.      Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 15-09-2014 are contained in the Memorandum of Appeal. Hearing : Respondent opted to be absent despite of our due notice to them. Dr. G K Sarkar, Learned Advocate, appeared in-person on behalf of the appellant, before the Commission and made the submissions at length. Decision : It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 26-05-2014, sought information from the respondents on the issue as contained therein. Respondents, vide their response dated 25-06-14, allegedly....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....latnama and 3 case laws submitted by noticee No. 3 M/s. Ganesha Impes Pvt. Ltd. mentioned at page no. 21 in third last para of order". It is also submitted by him that the documents sought were never part of DRI investigation however the same was submitted by co-Noticee Advocate during adjudication proceeding leading to passing the order-in-original CAO No. 183/2008/CAC/CC/KS, dated 29-12-2008. Therefore, plea taken by respondents i.e. Section 24(1) read with second schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 is not applicable in the matter. 5. It is to be seen here that learned FAA vide his order dated 07-07-2014, rejected the FA on the following ground : (i)      The case has not been adjudicated finally and hence, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmission finds that the invocation of Section 24 read with second schedule (Entry No. 3) of the RTI Act, 2005 by the respondents is not legally tenable in the present case. 8. The Commission heard the submissions made by appellant at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 26-05-2014, respondent's response dated 25-06-2014, FAA's order dated 26-08-2014, appellant's written submissions dated 24-02-2015 and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal. 9. The Commission is of the considered view that the appellant has been deprived by the respondents deliberately from having the benefits of the RTI Act, 2005, even after....