Quantcast
Channel: Central Information Commission
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 20258

Mrmanish Aggarwal vs Gnctd on 3 June, 2015

$
0
0

2.  Appellant sought for action taken report on his letter dt 6.2.2014, certified copy of official  noting, reply received from DAVPS, details of complaints, name of complainant, date of  complaint   and   action   taken   on   complaints   since   October   2013.       PIO   enclosed   the  information on point no 1,2,3 & 5.   Unsatisfied with the PIO reply, appellant made first  appeal.   FAA directed the PIO to provide information within 7 days.  On non compliance of  FAA order, appellant approached the Commission.

3.     The appellant is not present.     The Public Authority made their submissions.   The  respondent   officer   submitted   that   the   appellant   has   been   furnished   with   the   relevant  information.  The appellant is fighting against the DAV Public School, which is one of the  best   schools  in  Delhi,   on  the  ground  of   encroachment   of   DDA  land.     The  respondent  authority   have   already   made   correspondence   with   the   DDA,   which   has   asked   the  Department to indicate the alternative arrangements made to the students of the school  who will be disturbed due to demolition of the school encroachment.  The department had  replied   to   the   DDA   that   they   can   give   admission   to   the   disturbed   students   in   the  Government school near to the DAV Public School.   In the meanwhile, the DAV Public  School had gone to the High Court and obtained the stay order against the demolition  move.     The appellant has also  lodged  a complaint against  the  DDE,  Ms. Saroj  Bala,  seeking her prosecution,  and the same was disposed of by the Court. 


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 20258

Trending Articles