{"filename": "105795.pdf", "doc_subtype": "ADJUNCT_COMPLIANCE", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 7282, "case_no": "CIC/HNBGU/A/2020/105795", "date_signed": "27.02.2023", "exemptions_cited": ["8(1)(j)"], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": "Amita Pandove", "date_original_order": "04.08.2021", "date_adjunct": "27.02.2023", "original_order_text": "The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record as well as the proceedings \nduring the hearing observes that the transfer of the RTI Application by HNBGU to the \nDhanauri College, Haridwar mindlessly and in addition to it the direction issued by the \nFAA to the Principal, Dhanuari College, Haridwar to provide information without \nascertaining the status of the said College vis-à-vis Section 2(h) of the RTI Act was not \nappropriate. \nIn fact, in the instant case, the status of the averred college being a public authority or \nnot under the RTI Act is not the moot question for determination as the RTI Application \nCIC/HNBGU/A/2020/105795 \nPage 2 of 7 \n \nwas filed with a public authority. Here, it is relevant to bring out the provisions of \nSection 2(j) and 2(f) of the RTI Act which clearly stipulates that: \n \nSection 2(j)- “....“right to information", "adjunct_ruling_text": "Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings \nduring the hearing, the Commission observes that adequate information qua the \ninstant RTI Application has been given by the Respondent vide letter dated \n25.09.2021 and the Commission is further convinced with the explanation \nprovided by the then CPIO vide letter dated 24.09.2021 and by Deputy Registrar \nCIC/HNBGU/A/2020/105795 \nPage 6 of 7 \n \n(Exams), HNBGU through email dated 28.09.2021 and accordingly show cause \nproceedings are hereby dropped.", "adjunct_outcome": "SCN_DROPPED", "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "117965.pdf", "doc_subtype": "ADJUNCT_COMPLIANCE", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 3201, "case_no": "CIC/DHEDU/A/2017/117965", "date_signed": "27.02.2023", "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": "Amita Pandove", "date_original_order": "09.05.2018", "date_adjunct": "27.02.2023", "original_order_text": "Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, it is \nevident that no reply had been provided by the then CPIO, which is a grave violation of \nthe provisions of the Act. The Commission instructs Mr. K. P. J. Gerald (present CPIO) \nto obtain the reply to the showcause notice from the then CPIO Mr. B. K. Sharma, Under \nSecretary, now posted at P&N Department explaining why penal action should not be \ntaken under the provisions of the Act for this misconduct and negligence, and forward the \nsame to the Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. \nThe Commission also instructs the present CPIO to provide point wise response to the \nRTI queries within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which \nproceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 shall be initiated against him..", "adjunct_ruling_text": "Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings \nduring the hearing, the Commission observes that adequate information qua the \ninstant RTI Application has been given by the Respondent vide letter dated \n10.05.2018 in compliance to the previous order dated 09.05.2018 of the \nCommission and the Commission is further convinced with the explanation \nprovided by the Respondent and accordingly show cause proceedings are hereby \ndropped.", "adjunct_outcome": "UNKNOWN", "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "124283.pdf", "doc_subtype": "ADJUNCT_COMPLIANCE", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 4487, "case_no": "CIC/UOALD/A/2020/124283", "date_signed": "27.02.2023", "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": "Amita Pandove", "date_original_order": "02.12.2021", "date_adjunct": "27.02.2023", "original_order_text": "The Commission at the outset finds no scope of action with respect to \ninformation sought by the Appellant and the reply provided by the CPIO as it \nadequately addresses/answers the queries raised in the instant RTI Application as \nper the provisions of RTI Act. \nNotwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission takes grave exception to the \nfactum of delay caused by the then CPIO (designated at the time of receipt of RTI \nApplication) along with the concerned deemed PIO in providing reply coupled \nwith relevant information to the Appellant within the stipulated time period as \nper RTI Act. Such casual approach of the then CPIO and the deemed PIO causes \nunwarranted obstruction to the Appellant’s right to information which is in grave \nviolation to the provisions of RTI Act. \nIn view of the above, the then CPIO along with the deemed PIO in averred \nAppeals through the present CPIO are hereby directed to submit their written \nsubmissions along with supporting documents as to why no reply/information \nCIC/UOALD/A/2020/124283 \nPage 2 of 5 \n \nwas provided to the RTI Application within the timeline stipulated under the RTI \nAct. \nThe written submission of the then CPIO and the concerned deemed PIO should reach \nthe Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which show-\ncause proceedings may be initiated against him for imposing penalty under Section 20 of \nthe RTI Act. Further the present CPIO \nshould serve a copy of this order to the then CPIO and the ", "adjunct_ruling_text": "Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings \nduring the hearing, the Commission observes that adequate information qua the \ninstant RTI Application has been given to the Appellant and the Commission is \nconvinced with the written explanation of the answering Respondent regarding the \ndelay that has occurred in providing the relevant information to the Appellant and \ntherefore, in the light of the facts mentioned in written explanation dated \n20.05.2022, the Commission cannot attribute any mala fide against the concerned \nRespondent and deems it expedient to drop the Show Cause proceedings in the \ninstant matter with a word of caution to Respondent public authority that in future, \n \nCIC/UOALD/A/2020/124283 \nPage 4 of 5 \n \n \nthey shall ensure that replies to the RTI Applications shall be provided within the \nmandated time-frame as specified in the provisions of the RTI Act.", "adjunct_outcome": "UNKNOWN", "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "126140.pdf", "doc_subtype": "ADJUNCT_COMPLIANCE", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 2127, "case_no": "CIC/OTCLC/A/2020/126140", "date_signed": "27.02.2023", "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": "Amita Pandove", "date_original_order": "15.11.2021", "date_adjunct": "27.02.2023", "adjunct_ruling_text": "Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings \nduring the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant RTI Application has \nbeen received by the office of Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Kanpur on \n19.05.2020 and adequate information qua the instant RTI Application has been \ngiven by the Respondent vide letter dated 05.06.2020 and the Commission is \nCIC/OTCLC/A/2020/126140 \nPage 4 of 5 \n \nfurther convinced with the explanation provided by the Respondent and therefore, \nthe show cause proceedings are hereby dropped.", "adjunct_outcome": "SCN_DROPPED", "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "136051.pdf", "doc_subtype": "PRIMARY_DECISION", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 4859, "case_no": "CIC/CSWRI/A/2021/136051", "date_signed": "27.02.2023", "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": "Amita Pandove", "rti_filed_on": "06.05.2021", "cpio_replied_on": "22.06.2021", "first_appeal_on": "26.06.2021", "faa_order_on": "12.07.2021", "second_appeal_on": "06.09.2021", "date_of_hearing": "04.01.2023", "issue": "The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 06.05.2021 seeking \ninformation on the following four points: \n \nShri Navin Kumar Yadav, CPIO, ICAR-Central Sheep and Wool Research \nInstitute, Jaipur, Rajasthan vide letter dated 22.06.2021, enclosed a letter \ngiven by Shri Neeraj Tanwar, Administrative Office, ICAR-Central Sheep \nand Wool Research Institute, Jaipur, Rajasthanas under: \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCIC/CSWRI/A/2021/136051 \n \nPage 3 of 8 \n \n \nBeing dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.06.2021. The \nFirst Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.07.2021, informed as under:", "application": "The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply furnished by the \nRespondent as he has sought copy of orders which has not been provided. \nThe Respondent submitted that a categorical reply with respect to the instant \nRTI Application has been furnished to the Appellant thereby furnishing \ninformation as available on record. The Respondent further submitted that \nthe Appellant has grievance at the backdrop of the instant RTI Application \nand the same shall be contested at the appropriate platform. He further added \nthat the information sought vide point 1-3 of the RTI Application are \nsituation based queries and as such it does not fall within the purview of \ndefinition of ‘Information’ as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act. However, a \nmore elaborated explanation has been furnished to the Appellant vide \nwritten submission dated 21.09.2022. \nA written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri. Indra \nBhushan Kumar, PIO, Central Sheep and Wool Research Institu", "conclusion": "Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings \nduring the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent has \nattended the instant RTI Application by furnishing the requisite information \nas available on record to the Appellant. Further, the Respondent has \nprovided adequate explanation with respect to the contentions raised by the \nAppellant during hearing and the Respondent has also furnished a well \nelaborated written submission and the Commission finds no infirmity with \nthe same. In view of the above, the Commission finds no further scope of \nintervention in the instant matter. \nWith the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of.", "rules_cited": ["section 2(f) of the RTI Act"], "outcome": "APPEAL_DISMISSED", "public_authority": "Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute, Avikanagar, Teh- Malpura, Dist Tonk,", "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "142681.pdf", "doc_subtype": "PRIMARY_DECISION", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 6303, "case_no": null, "date_signed": "27.02.2023", "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": "Amita Pandove", "rti_filed_on": "30.11.2020", "cpio_replied_on": "31.12.2020", "first_appeal_on": "05.01.2021", "faa_order_on": "27.01.2021", "second_appeal_on": "08.10.2021", "date_of_hearing": "04.01.2023", "issue": "The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 30.11.2020 seeking \ninformation on the following six points: \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCIC/DOA&C/A/2021/142681 \n \nPage 3 of 7 \n \n \nShri. Jitender Nagar, Deputy Commissioner (Coop.) & CPIO, Ministry of \nAgriculture & Farmers Welfare, New Delhi vide letter dated 31.12.2020, \ninformed to the Appellant as under: \n \nBeing dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.01.2021. The \nFirst Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.01.2021, informed as under: \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCIC/DOA&C/A/2021/142681 \n \nPage 4 of 7", "application": "The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply furnished by the \nRespondent with respect to the instant RTI Application as it is false and \nmisleading. \nThe Respondent submitted that a point wise and categorical reply with \nrespect to the instant RTI Application has been provided to the Appellant on \nthe basis of the information as available on record. \nThe Appellant interjected that reply with respect to point 1-2 of the RTI \nApplication is misleading, to which the Respondent submitted that it has \nbeen categorically stated that no inspection of Adarsh Credit Cooperative \nSociety has been conducted therefore no information is there to be provided. \nThe Appellant further interjected that information with respect to point 3-4 \nof the RTI Application has also not been provided, to which the Respondent \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCIC/DOA&C/A/2021/142681 \n \nPage 5 of 7 \n \nsubmitted that many complaints against the Adarsh Credit Cooperative \nSociety have been filed and many show cause ", "conclusion": "Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings \nduring the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent has \nattended the instant RTI Application within the stipulated time by furnishing \na point wise and categorical reply to the Appellant. However, the Appellant \nhas raised dissatisfaction with the same but the Respondent has provided \nadequate explanation with respect to point 1, 2 & 6 of the RTI Application \nand the Commission finds no infirmity with the same. \nFurther, as regards the information with respect to point 3 &4 of the RTI \nApplication, the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent to revisit \nthe averred points by searching their database to locate the requisite \ninformation and furnish the same to the Appellant within the time", "rules_cited": ["Section 8"], "outcome": "APPEAL_DISMISSED", "public_authority": "Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Room No-31, Krishi Bhawan,", "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "143660.pdf", "doc_subtype": "PRIMARY_DECISION", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 6064, "case_no": "CIC/DHEDU/A/2021/143660", "date_signed": "24.02.2023", "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": "Amita Pandove", "rti_filed_on": "28.06.2021", "first_appeal_on": "29.07.2021", "second_appeal_on": "13.10.2021", "date_of_hearing": "28.12.2022", "issue": "The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 28.06.2021 seeking \ninformation as under: \n \nHaving not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a \nFirst Appeal dated 29.07.2021, which has not been adjudicated by the First \nAppellate Authority as per available records.", "application": "The Appellant stated that no reply with respect to the instant RTI \nApplication has been provided by the Respondent till date. \nThe Respondent submitted that they did not receive any letter from UGC \nand since the matter is regarding the promotion and arrears under Career \n \n \nCIC/DHEDU/A/2021/143660 \n \n \n \n \n \nPage 3 of 6 \n \nadvancement scheme, it pertains to the University of Allahabad, therefore \nthe RTI Application has been transferred to them vide letter dated \n10.08.2021 for providing the requisite information to the Appellant and the \ncopy of the same has been sent to the Appellant, but no response has been \nreceived from the University till date. The contents of the letter dated \n10.08.2021 are as under: \n \nThe Commission queried the Respondent regarding delay in transfer of the \ninstant RTI Application, to which Respondent submitted that the delay took \nplace because it took time to ascertain as to whom the information would \npertain. \nUpon being further queried by the Commis", "conclusion": "Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings \nduring the hearing, the Commission observes that since the information \nsought pertains to University of Allahabad, the RTI Application has been \ntransferred to them, but no information has been provided by them till date. \nIn view of the above and the in the light of the submission made during \nhearing the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent to furnish the \nrequisite information to the Appellant after obtaining the same from the \nconcerned custodian, within the time frame of 15 days from the date of \nreceipt of this order. \nBe that as it may, the Commission further observes that the CPIO-University \nof Allahabad has not furnished the requisite information to the Appellant and \nhe has not appeared", "rules_cited": [], "outcome": "INFORMATION_DIRECTED", "public_authority": "Nodal Officer, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education,", "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "146467.pdf", "doc_subtype": "PRIMARY_DECISION", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 4806, "case_no": "CIC/CBSED/C/2021/146467", "date_signed": "20.02.2023", "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": null, "rti_filed_on": "31.07.2021", "cpio_replied_on": "24.08.2021", "date_of_hearing": "07.12.2022", "issue": "The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2021 seeking \ninformation on the following two points: \n \nThe CPIO vide online reply dated 24.08.2021, informed to the Complainant \nas under: \n \nBeing dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission vide this \ninstant Complaint.", "application": "The representative of the Complainant submitted that despite depositing the \nrequisite documentation fee, complete information has not been provided by \nthe Respondent. He further added that the Respondent has provided blank \npages. \n \n CIC/CBSED/C/2021/146467 \nPage 3 of 8 \n \nUpon being queried by the Commission to substantiate the above stance, the \nRepresentative of the Appellant stated he did not bring those documents. \nThe respondent submitted that the Appellant has inspected the relevant \nrecords on 01.09.2021 and all the requisite documents as earmarked by him \nhas been furnished in 604 pages to the Appellant on 17.11.2021. The \nCommission queried the Respondent regarding the delay of two months in \nfurnishing the documents, to which the Respondent submitted that since the \nrequisite documents were huge in number, its compilation and processing \ntook time. The Respondent also showed the copy of catalogue of documents \nto the Commission as furnished by them. The conten", "conclusion": "Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings \nduring the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent has \n \n CIC/CBSED/C/2021/146467 \nPage 7 of 8 \n \nfurnished the requisite documents to the Appellant as earmarked by him \nduring inspection. However, there has been a delay in furnishing the said \ndocuments to the Appellant, for which the Respondent has provided \nadequate explanation and accordingly the delay occurred is hereby \ncondoned. Moreover, the representative of the Appellant has failed to \nestablish that blank pages have been provided. In view of the above, the \nCommission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter. \nWith the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.", "rules_cited": [], "outcome": "APPEAL_DISMISSED", "public_authority": "Central Board Of Secondary Education, \"Shiksha Kendra\", 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar,", "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "147101.pdf", "doc_subtype": "PRIMARY_DECISION", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 5729, "case_no": "CIC/NSIKP/A/2021/147101", "date_signed": "27.02.2023", "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": "Amita Pandove", "rti_filed_on": "29.06.2021", "cpio_replied_on": "22.07.2021", "first_appeal_on": "03.08.2021", "faa_order_on": "01.09.2021", "second_appeal_on": "03.11.2021", "date_of_hearing": "04.01.2023", "issue": "The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 29.06.2021 seeking \ninformation on the following eleven points: \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCIC/NSIKP/A/2021/147101 \n \nPage 3 of 7 \n \n \n \nShri Brijesh Kumar Sahu, Sr. Administrative Officer & CPIO, National \nSugar Institute, Kanpur vide letter dated 22.07.2021, informed to the \nAppellant as under: \n \nBeing dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.08.2021. The \nFirst Appellate Authority vide order dated 01.09.2021, informed as under:", "application": "The Appellant stated that no information with respect to the instant RTI \nApplication has been provided by the Respondent till date. \nThe Respondent submitted that at the time of RTI Application the \nrepresentation of the Appellant dated 01.01.2013 was not received by the \nconcerned department therefore it has intimated to the Appellant that the \nrequisite information is not available. However, upon searching the database \nthe averred representation has been located and therefore the same will now \nbe forwarded to the competent authority for necessary action and further the \naction taken on the same will be furnished to the Appellant within a month. \nThe Commission interjected that there is change of stance as well as an \nevasive reply has been furnished to the Appellant as the above stated facts \nand circumstances regarding non-receipt of the averred representation could \nhave been mentioned in the initial reply. The Commission further observes \nthat the instant matter has a larger p", "conclusion": "Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings \nduring the hearing, the Commission observes that though the Respondent \nhas attended the instant RTI Application within the stipulated time frame, an \nevasive reply has been furnished to the Appellant. The Commission strictly \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCIC/NSIKP/A/2021/147101 \n \nPage 6 of 7 \n \nadmonishes the Respondent for not attending the instant RTI Application in \na judicious manner and for changing their stance during hearing. \nIn view of the above, a copy of this order is marked to the Director, \nNational Sugar Institute, (Department of Food & Public Distribution), \nto take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the \nRespondent public authority’s office. The Director is directed to \nsensitize the off", "rules_cited": [], "outcome": "APPEAL_DISMISSED", "public_authority": "National Sugar Institute, (Department of Food & Public Distribution), Kalyanpur,", "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "147258.pdf", "doc_subtype": "PRIMARY_DECISION", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 6534, "case_no": "CIC/MOHRD/A/2021/147258", "date_signed": "01.03.2023", "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": "Amita Pandove", "rti_filed_on": "17.04.2021", "first_appeal_on": "12.06.2021", "faa_order_on": "01.07.2021", "second_appeal_on": "08.11.2021", "date_of_hearing": "04.01.2023", "issue": "The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 17.04.2021 seeking \ninformation as under: \n \nHaving not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a \nFirst Appeal dated 12.06.2021. The First Appellate Authority vide order \ndated 01.07.2021, informed as under: \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCIC/MOHRD/A/2021/147258 \n \nPage 3 of 7", "application": "The Appellant stated that no information with respect to the instant RTI \nApplication has been provided by the Respondent till date. Upon being \nqueried by the Commission the Appellant submitted that he is working as \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCIC/MOHRD/A/2021/147258 \n \nPage 4 of 7 \n \nlab assistant in Ludhiana and no promotion and increment is being provided \nby the concerned college and that is why the averred information has been \nsought. \nThe Respondent submitted that the instant RTI Application has been \nreceived by them on 26.04.2021 and the same has been transferred to the \nDirectorate of Public Instruction (Colleges) for furnishing information vide \nletter dated 23.06.2021 but no response has been received in their office \nfrom them till date. Upon being queried by the Commission regarding the \ndelay in transferring the RTI Application, the Respondent submitted that the \nRTI Application could not be transferred within the prescribe time frame due \nto prevailing restrictions of COVID Pand", "conclusion": "Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings \nduring the hearing, the Commission observes that the information sought in \nthe instant RTI Application is not available in the records of the Respondent \nPublic Authority and accordingly vide letter dated 23.06.2021, they have \ntransferred the instant RTI Application to the concerned custodian of the \nrecord and the delay occurred in transferring the instant RTI Application is \nhereby condoned in the light of the submissions made by the Respondent \nduring the hearing but till date no information has been received from the \nconcerned custodian of the information. The Commission further observes \nthat the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to a \ndepartment under the control and management", "rules_cited": [], "outcome": "REMANDED", "public_authority": "/Nodal Officer, Panjab University, Sector 14, Chandigarh-160014", "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "147321.pdf", "doc_subtype": "ADJUNCT_COMPLIANCE", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 3881, "case_no": "CIC/UOALD/A/2017/147321", "date_signed": "01.03.2023", "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": "Amita Pandove", "date_original_order": "25.09.2018", "date_adjunct": "01.03.2023", "original_order_text": "Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, \nthe Commission instructs the Respondent to forward their written submission to the \nCIC/UOALD/A/2017/147321 \n \nPage 2 of 4 \n \nAppellant through Email ID mentioned in the preceding paragraph expeditiously and \nnot later than 07 days from the date of this order. The Commission would reiterate its \ninstructions to the Vice Chancellor as per its decision in Appeal No \nCIC/UOALD/A/2017/141939-BJ dated 10.09.2018 for further remedial action. \n \nThe Commission also observed that no information had been provided by the \nRespondent within the stipulated period, which is a grave violation of the provisions of \nthe RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, instructs the Director, HRDC, University of \nAllahabad to showcause why action should not be taken under the provisions of the \nAct for this misconduct and negligence within a period of 15 days from the date of \nreceipt of this order. \n \nThe Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic \nconferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials \nabout the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties \nand responsibilities.", "adjunct_ruling_text": "Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings \nduring the hearing, the Commission observes that adequate information qua the \ninstant RTI Application has been given by the Respondent vide letter dated \n24.09.2018 and the Commission is further convinced with the explanation \nprovided by the answering Respondent for the delay occurred in providing the \ninformation to the Appellant and accordingly the Commission deems it fit to drop \nthe show cause proceedings in the instant matter with a word of caution to \nRespondent public authority that in future, they shall ensure that replies to the RTI \nApplications shall be provided within the mandated time-frame as specified in the \nprovisions of the RTI Act. \nWith the above observations, the Show Cause proceedings are hereby dropped. \n \n \nAmita Pandove (अिमता पांडव)", "adjunct_outcome": "SCN_DROPPED", "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "148635.pdf", "doc_subtype": "ADJUNCT_COMPLIANCE", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 3326, "case_no": "CIC/MOHRD/A/2017/148635", "date_signed": "03.03.2023", "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": "Amita Pandove", "date_original_order": "28.09.2018", "date_adjunct": "01.03.2023", "original_order_text": "Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by \nthe Appellant, it is evident that no reply had been provided by the \nRespondent in the matter, which is a grave violation of the provisions \nof the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission instructs the CPIO and \nRegistrar to showcause why action should not be taken under the \nprovisions of the Act for this misconduct and negligence. The \nCommission therefore, directs the Respondent to: \nCIC/MOHRD/A/2017/148635 \n \nPage 2 of 4 \n \n1- provide the information to the Appellant within a period of 15 \ndays; \n2- explain why penal action should not be taken as per Section 20(1) \nof the RTI Act, 2005, within 15 days; \nfrom the date of receipt of this order.", "adjunct_ruling_text": "Upon perusal of the facts on record the Commission observes that the Respondent \nhas provided an explanation with respect to above show cause, wherein the \nRespondent submitted that the information sought vide RTI Application was \nrelated to the Assistant Registrar Academics Mr. Pankaj Kaushik who failed to \nfurnish the requisite information in time, however, a reply has been furnished to \nthe Appellant by the First Appellate Authority wherein it has been informed to the \nAppellant that information sought is not readily available and furnishing the same \nwill require collection and collation. The Commission further observes that the \nCIC/MOHRD/A/2017/148635 \n \nPage 3 of 4 \n \nRespondent has complied with the Commission’s Order by furnishing requisite \ninformation to the Appellant vide letter dated 22.10.2018. \nIn the light of the written explanation dated 22.10.2018, the Commission deems it \nfit to drop the show cause proceedings in the instant matter with a word of caution \nto Respondent public authority to remain careful in future while dealing with the \nmatters related to RTI Act. \nWith the above observations, the Show Cause proceedings are hereby dropped.", "adjunct_outcome": "SCN_DROPPED", "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "149412.pdf", "doc_subtype": "ADJUNCT_COMPLIANCE", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 3988, "case_no": "CIC/BANHU/A/2017/149412", "date_signed": "03.03.2023", "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": "Amita Pandove", "date_original_order": "05.10.2018", "date_adjunct": "03.03.2023", "original_order_text": "Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the \nAppellant regarding nonreceipt of any OMR Answer sheet, the Commission \ninstructs the Registrar, BHU to inquire into the matter and provide the \ninformation to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this \norder. The Commission also instructs the Registrar, BHU to seek the \nCIC/BANHU/A/2017/149412 \n \nPage 2 of 6 \n \nexplanation of the delinquent officer to show cause as to why penal \nproceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 should not be initiated on \nhim/ her and forward the same to the Commission within a period of 15 days \nfrom the date of receipt of this order. \nFurthermore, it is evident that the implementation of the provisions of the RTI \nAct, 2005 is far from satisfactory. Thus, the Commission also instructs the \nRespondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to \nsensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant \nprovisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and \nresponsibilities. \nThe Commission also directs the VC/Registrar to look into such matters and \nensure that the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 were implemented in letter \nand spirit. It would be appropriate that the summary of all such decisions is \nbrought to the notice of the Board of Governors of the University for their \ninformation.", "adjunct_ruling_text": "Upon perusal of the facts on record, the Commission observes that adequate \ninformation qua the instant RTI Application has been furnished to the Appellant on \n29.11.2018 and in the light of written explanation dated 01.12.2018 and \n20.08.2022, the Commission deems it fit to drop the show cause proceedings in the \nCIC/BANHU/A/2017/149412 \n \nPage 5 of 6 \n \ninstant matter with a word of caution to Respondent public authority to be careful \nin future while dealing matters related to the RTI Act. \nWith the above observations, the Show Cause proceedings are hereby dropped.", "adjunct_outcome": "SCN_DROPPED", "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "150020.pdf", "doc_subtype": "PRIMARY_DECISION", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 3967, "case_no": "CIC/NAVVS/A/2021/150020", "date_signed": "27.02.2023", "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": "Amita Pandove", "rti_filed_on": "01.07.2021", "cpio_replied_on": "03.08.2021", "first_appeal_on": "23.08.2021", "faa_order_on": "28.09.2021", "second_appeal_on": "23.11.2021", "date_of_hearing": "04.01.2023", "issue": "The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 01.07.2021 seeking \ninformation as under: \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCIC/NAVVS/A/2021/150020 \n \nPage 3 of 7 \n \n \n \nShri Krishan Gaur, PIO/ Assistant Officer in Charge, Navodaya Vidyalaya \nSamiti, Noida, Uttar Pradesh vide letter dated 03.08.2021, informed to the \nAppellant as under: \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCIC/NAVVS/A/2021/150020 \n \nPage 4 of 7 \n \n \n \nBeing dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.08.2021. The \nFirst Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.09.2021, informed as under: \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCIC/NAVVS/A/2021/150020 \n \nPage 5 of 7", "application": "The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the \nhearing notice. \nThe Respondent submitted that a categorical reply with respect to the instant \nRTI Application has already been furnished to the Appellant. The \nCommission interjected that the Appellant has raised dissatisfaction with \nreply on point 2(ii)-(v) of the RTI Application, to which the Respondent \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCIC/NAVVS/A/2021/150020 \n \nPage 6 of 7 \n \nsubmitted that the reply has been furnished as per the provisions of the RTI \nAct and on the basis of the information as available on record.", "conclusion": "Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings \nduring the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent has \nadequately attended the instant RTI Application by furnishing a categorical \nreply to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act and on the basis \nof the available record and the Commission finds no infirmity with the same. \nMoreover, the Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite being \nserved the hearing notice. Hence, the Commission finds no further scope of \nintervention in the instant matter. \nWith the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of.", "rules_cited": [], "outcome": "APPEAL_DISMISSED", "public_authority": "Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, B-15, Institutional Area, Sector 62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh -201309", "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "150162.pdf", "doc_subtype": "PRIMARY_DECISION", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 6497, "case_no": "CIC/OTCLC/A/2021/150162", "date_signed": "28.02.2023", "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": "Amita Pandove", "rti_filed_on": "18.07.2021", "first_appeal_on": "28.08.2021", "second_appeal_on": "24.11.2021", "date_of_hearing": "04.01.2023", "issue": "The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 18.07.2021 seeking \ninformation on the following three points: \n \nHaving not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a \nFirst Appeal dated 28.08.2021, which has not been adjudicated by the First \nAppellate Authority as per available records.", "application": "The Appellant stated that no information with respect to the instant RTI \nApplication has been provided by the Respondent till date. \nThe Respondent submitted that a categorical reply with respect to the instant \nRTI Application has been furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated \n27.08.2021 thereby enclosing the inputs received from the Hazaribagh \nOffice vide letter dated 23.08.2021. The contents of the reply dated \n27.08.2021 are as under: \n \nThe contents of the enclosure dated 23.08.2021 as received from the \nHazaribagh Office are as under: \n \nThe Respondent further submitted that the Appellant has filed an Industrial \nDispute case dated 24.10.2003 and a complaint case dated 23.04.2018 \nregarding non-payment and since both the cases were similar it has been \ntaken up by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hazaribagh Office. He \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCIC/OTCLC/A/2021/150162 \n \nPage 4 of 7 \n \nfurther added that the above cases were decided on 31.08.2022 and the \nreport of the same ha", "conclusion": "Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings \nduring the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent furnished \na point wise and categorical reply with respect to the instant RTI Application \nto the Appellant. However, the Appellant raised contention that he is not in \nreceipt of the copy of orders with respect to point 2 & 3 of the RTI \nApplication. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCIC/OTCLC/A/2021/150162 \n \nPage 6 of 7 \n \nIn view of the above and in the light of the submissions made during \nhearing, the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent to make effort \nto search their database/records in a prudent manner to find/locate the \naverred information with respect to point 2 & 3 of the instant RTI \nApplication in their official records and provide the r", "rules_cited": ["Section 5(4) of RTI Act", "section 4(1) of the \nRTI Act"], "outcome": "APPEAL_DISMISSED", "public_authority": "O/o the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner(C), Jagjiwan Nagar, New Colony, Dhanbad 826003", "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "152359.pdf", "doc_subtype": "PRIMARY_DECISION", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 5964, "case_no": "CIC/FCIND/C/2021/152359", "date_signed": "21.02.2023", "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": "Amita Pandove", "rti_filed_on": "20.01.2021", "date_of_hearing": "20.01.2023", "issue": "The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.01.2021 seeking \ninformation as under: \n \nHaving not received any information from the Respondent, the Complainant \napproached the Commission vide this instant Complaint.", "application": "The Complainant submitted that no information with respect to the instant \nRTI Application has been provided by the Respondent till date. He further \nadded that he is seeking action taken with respect to his representation dated \n CIC/FCIND/C/2021/152359 \n \nPage 3 of 6 \n \n10.10.2020 wherein he has enclosed medical bills of his wife which has not \nbeen reimbursed till date. \nThe respondent submitted that the Appellant has filed multiple RTIs with \nrespect to his grievance regarding reimbursement of his medical bills and \nmany replies have been furnished to the Appellant informing him that the \nAppellant had gone for the medical treatment in 2015 and he has submitted \nthe claim of bills in 2017 after the lapse of more than 2 years, whereas it \nshould have been claimed within the time period of 6 months. \nThe Appellant interjected that he had applied for the medical card and it was \ndelayed f", "conclusion": "Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings \nduring the hearing, the Commission observes that the Appellant has raised a \ngrievance vide instant RTI Application, and he is harping on the redressal of \nthe same, which is beyond the adjudicatory powers of the Commission. \nHence, the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant \nmatter. \nBe that as it may, the Commission further observes that the Respondent has \nfailed to attend the instant RTI Application. The Commission expresses \nsevere displeasure with the cavalier approach of the Respondent and the \nstrictly admonishes for not attending the instant RTI Application. \nHence, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide a written \nexplanation to the Commission for not attending the", "rules_cited": [], "outcome": "INFORMATION_DIRECTED", "public_authority": "Nodal Officer, Food Corporation of India, Headquarter Office, 16-20,", "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "152752.pdf", "doc_subtype": "PRIMARY_DECISION", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 6539, "case_no": "CIC/MLABE/C/2021/152752", "date_signed": "31.01.2023", "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": "Amita Pandove", "rti_filed_on": "10.08.2021", "cpio_replied_on": "09.09.2021", "first_appeal_on": "11.09.2021", "faa_order_on": "17.09.2021", "date_of_hearing": "31.01.2023", "issue": "The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 10.08.2021 seeking \ninformation on the following seven points: \n \n \n \n \nCIC/MLABE/C/2021/152752 \n \nPage 3 of 7 \n \n \n \n \n \nCIC/MLABE/C/2021/152752 \n \nPage 4 of 7 \n \nThe CPIO vide online reply dated 09.09.2021, informed to the Complainant \nas under: \n \n \nBeing dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 11.09.2021. \nThe First Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.09.2021, informed as \nunder:", "application": "The Complainant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply provided \nby the Respondent qua point no. 1 to 5 and 7 of the instant RTI Application. \nThe Respondent submitted that with respect to point no. 1 to 5 of the instant \nRTI Application, Failure of Conciliation (FOC) report of the Appellant came \nin the year 2015 for which a File Bearing no. L-42011/83/2015-IR(DU) was \n \n \nCIC/MLABE/C/2021/152752 \n \nPage 5 of 7 \n \ncreated in the office and as per their office practice, all the subsequent \ncorrespondences has been kept and maintained in the averred file and upon \nreceiving the instant RTI Application, their office has checked the File \nBearing no. L-42011/83/2015-IR(DU) for providing the information to the \nComplainant but nowhere in the averred file they could locate/find the \naverred representation dated 10.06.2017 of the Complainant. \nThe Commission interjected and quizzed the Respondent that the", "conclusion": "Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings \nduring the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a \n \n \nCIC/MLABE/C/2021/152752 \n \nPage 6 of 7 \n \ncomplaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only \nadjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the \ninformation has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause \nto the information seeker. Since the Complainant has raised his \ndiscontentment qua point no. 1 to 5 and 7 of the instant RTI Application and \nafter providing a timely reply to the Complainant vide letter dated \n09.09.2021, the Respondent has submitted that with respect to point no. 1 to \n5 of the insta", "rules_cited": ["Section 18 of the RTI Act"], "outcome": "COMPLAINT_S18", "public_authority": null, "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "154649.pdf", "doc_subtype": "PRIMARY_DECISION", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 4549, "case_no": "CIC/AAOIN/C/2021/154649", "date_signed": "30.01.2023", "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": "Amita Pandove", "rti_filed_on": "19.07.2021", "cpio_replied_on": "21.09.2021", "date_of_hearing": "25.01.2023", "issue": "The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2021 seeking \ninformation on the following three points: \n \n \n \n CIC/AAOIN/C/2021/154649 \n \nPage 3 of 6 \n \nMs. Sunita Bhardwaja, Sr. Manager – HR, HQ, PIO-HQ & Nodal Officer, \nAir India Airport Service, New Delhi vide letter dated 21.09.2021, informed \nto the Complainant as under: \n \n \nBeing dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission vide this \ninstant Complaint.", "application": "The Complainant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the \nhearing notice. \n \n CIC/AAOIN/C/2021/154649 \n \nPage 4 of 6 \n \nThe respondent submitted that a categorical and point wise reply with respect \nto the instant RTI Application has already been furnished to the Complainant \nvide letter dated 21.09.2021. \nA written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri. \nPrashant S Neve, PIO (Western Region) & Deputy General Manager-GH(O) \nvide letter dated 23.01.2023 wherein the Commission has been apprised as \nunder:", "conclusion": "Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings \nduring the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a \ncomplaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only \nadjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the \ninformation has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause \nto the information seeker. Since the Respondent has provided adequate \n \n CIC/AAOIN/C/2021/154649 \n \nPage 5 of 6 \n \ninformation to the Complainant, no mala-fide can be attributed against the \nRespondent. Moreover, the Complainant did not participate in the hearing to \nbuttress his case. Hence, the Commission finds no further scope of \nintervention in the ins", "rules_cited": ["Section 18 of the RTI Act"], "outcome": "APPEAL_DISMISSED", "public_authority": "Air India Airport Services Ltd., 2nd Floor, GSD Building, Air India Complex, Terminal-2,", "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "156139.pdf", "doc_subtype": "PRIMARY_DECISION", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 6642, "case_no": "CIC/UODEL/C/2022/156139", "date_signed": "31.01.2023", "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": "Amita Pandove", "rti_filed_on": "12.10.2022", "cpio_replied_on": "10.11.2022", "date_of_hearing": "31.01.2023", "issue": "The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.10.2022 seeking \ninformation on the following twelve points: \n \nShri Angad Tiwari, PIO, Sri Aurobindo College (Evening), New Delhi vide \nletter dated 10.11.2022, informed to the Complainant as under: \n \n CIC/UODEL/C/2022/156139 \n \nPage 3 of 7 \n \n \n \n \nBeing dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission vide this \ninstant Complaint.", "application": "The Complainant submitted that he is not satisfied with the information \nprovided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application. He further \nadded that wrong information has been given with respect to point no. 1 of \nthe instant RTI Application. \nThe Commission interjected and quizzed the Complainant to establish larger \npublic interest in seeking such sort of information; the Complainant could \nnot provide a cogent reply. \nThe Commission interjected and remarked the Complainant that information \nsought by him on point no. 1 of the RTI Application is exempted information \nunder the relevant clauses of Section 8 of the RTI Act. \nThe respondent submitted that adequate information on the basis of available \nrecords has been given to the Complainant qua the instant RTI Application \nvide letter dated 10.11.2022. He further added that the Complainant has filed \nthis RTI Application because his wife was working as librarian in Sri \nAurobindo College and she was removed from the service", "conclusion": "Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings \nduring the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent has \nprovided adequate information as per available records to the Complainant; \nhence no malafide intention of the Respondent has been established. \n CIC/UODEL/C/2022/156139 \n \nPage 5 of 7 \n \nThe Commission relies on one judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in \n“Chief", "rules_cited": ["Section 8 of the RTI Act", "Section 18", "Section \n19", "Section 19", "Section 7"], "outcome": "APPEAL_DISMISSED", "public_authority": "Sri Aurobindo College (Evening), University of Delhi, Malviya Nagar,", "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "2017-09-14-112612ZZZZZZZZZZZ0001.pdf", "doc_subtype": "OTHER", "doc_format": "2026", "text_length": 33418, "case_no": null, "date_signed": null, "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": null, "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "2017-09-14-112719ZZZZZZZZZZZ0001.pdf", "doc_subtype": "OTHER", "doc_format": "2026", "text_length": 33418, "case_no": null, "date_signed": null, "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": null, "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "2017-11-22-1702220001.pdf", "doc_subtype": "PRIMARY_DECISION", "doc_format": "2026", "text_length": 73860, "case_no": "CIC/SS/C/2013/000275", "date_signed": null, "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": null, "date_of_decision": "30", "issue": null, "application": null, "conclusion": "20.10.2AL7\nDecision by l'1. Sridhar Acharyulu\nBri€f Facts:\n1. \nShr R. K. lan and Shrlmatl Ita Bose have separately f led RTI applications\nseeking information from Indian Bank Association (lBA). The IBA refused to\nprovide information to both the applicants claiming that IBA was not a p!blic\nauthority.\n2. \nShrl RK Jain fited a comptaint dated 9.2.2015 u/s 18 of RTI Act agatnst\nIndian Banks Association (IBA) Mumbai for the denial of information on his\ntwo RTI applications both dated 16,10.2014. The complainants atso\nrequested referring matter to a larger bench and declaring IBA as a public\nauthority under RTi Act and directing them to provide the asked information.\nRK lain sought the information from Indian banks Association, Mumbai as\nCertlfied copy of documents reflecting Legal status of IBA.\nList of present offlce bearers along with their date ofjoining.\nComposition of rranagihg committee of IBA for the first year i.e. from\n\\^/hen it is formed.\nDate of its formation and name of the fou", "rules_cited": ["section 2(h) of the RTI Act", "section 1", "section 2", "section 2(h)", "Section 5 of the RTI Act", "Section 4 of the RTI Act", "Section 19(7)", "section 2(h) of RTI Act", "Section 2(h)", "Section 2(h) of RTI Act"], "outcome": "INFORMATION_DIRECTED", "appellant": null, "public_authority": null, "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "2017-11-22-1703370001.pdf", "doc_subtype": "PRIMARY_DECISION", "doc_format": "2026", "text_length": 73860, "case_no": "CIC/SS/C/2013/000275", "date_signed": null, "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": null, "date_of_decision": "30", "issue": null, "application": null, "conclusion": "20.10.2AL7\nDecision by l'1. Sridhar Acharyulu\nBri€f Facts:\n1. \nShr R. K. lan and Shrlmatl Ita Bose have separately f led RTI applications\nseeking information from Indian Bank Association (lBA). The IBA refused to\nprovide information to both the applicants claiming that IBA was not a p!blic\nauthority.\n2. \nShrl RK Jain fited a comptaint dated 9.2.2015 u/s 18 of RTI Act agatnst\nIndian Banks Association (IBA) Mumbai for the denial of information on his\ntwo RTI applications both dated 16,10.2014. The complainants atso\nrequested referring matter to a larger bench and declaring IBA as a public\nauthority under RTi Act and directing them to provide the asked information.\nRK lain sought the information from Indian banks Association, Mumbai as\nCertlfied copy of documents reflecting Legal status of IBA.\nList of present offlce bearers along with their date ofjoining.\nComposition of rranagihg committee of IBA for the first year i.e. from\n\\^/hen it is formed.\nDate of its formation and name of the fou", "rules_cited": ["section 2(h) of the RTI Act", "section 1", "section 2", "section 2(h)", "Section 5 of the RTI Act", "Section 4 of the RTI Act", "Section 19(7)", "section 2(h) of RTI Act", "Section 2(h)", "Section 2(h) of RTI Act"], "outcome": "INFORMATION_DIRECTED", "appellant": null, "public_authority": null, "source": "cic_pdf_batch1"} {"filename": "2018-01-09-102058CIC-BS-A-2016-0010910001.pdf", "doc_subtype": "PRIMARY_DECISION", "doc_format": "2023a", "text_length": 40417, "case_no": null, "date_signed": null, "exemptions_cited": [], "penalty_inr": null, "commissioner": null, "date_of_decision": "25", "issue": null, "application": null, "conclusion": "Consiiering the facts of t}e case, the submissions ma'de by botL the par:ties end to\nprovide a ierr and reasonable opDolfllni or tearing t\" tl '.h\" :?it:I:1lT-tl*:\nComrission d,rects ll:]e Regisuaj CIC to al:o rssue Eo[ce o: hearEg\nD-*' +L- 1_n .r {h,n^h--e-Haza:ath Qurb-e-vellore Hazaral}r \\]a]