CIC: The Second Appeal is infructuous as it has been filed in the name & signature of a different person other than that of the RTI Applicant - CIC: No document is available to suggest that the Appellant was authorised to file this Second Appeal
Date of Decision: 06/01/2017
The Appellant sought information through 4 points regarding the properties /khasra numbers within the Naraina CB Area which are not included in award no. 19/75-76 under PPE Act and lay out plan of the CB area.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present and assisted by Rahul Tanwar in person.
Respondent: Gyanendra Pal Singh, CPIO, O/o Delhi Cantonment Board and T.S. Nanda, Advocate present in person.
Appellant submitted that the RTI Application was filed by his father and under his authority he has filed the Second Appeal.
Commission observes that the Second Appeal is infructuous as it has been filed in the name & signature of a different person other than that of the RTI Applicant. It may be also noted that no appropriate document is available on record to suggest that the Appellant was authorised to file this Second Appeal.
Appeal is dismissed.
(Divya Prakash Sinha)
Citation: Ritesh Tanwar v. Delhi Cantonment Board in CIC/CC/A/2016/000690/SD