DIPANKAR DATTA,J. - (1.) The petitioner sought for certain information from the Public Information Officer in terms of provision contained in the Right to Information Act, 2005. His prayer was not considered resulting in an appeal being filed before the Central Information Commission, New Delhi. The Information Commissioner by an order dated 8th November, 2010 directed the Public Information Officer to provide the information sought for by the petitioner.
(2.) In purported compliance of the order of the Information Commissioner, the Public Information Officer furnished to the petitioner part information as sought for by him.
(3.) By a letter dated 6th April, 2011, the petitioner requested the Public Information Officer to provide full information, as sought for by him. According to the petitioner, the Public Information Officer chose to remain silent despite receipt of his request dated 6th April, 2011. Finding no other option, the petitioner approached the Information Commissioner once again with a representation dated 12th July, 2011. However, such representation was also not considered and disposed of with the result that the petitioner did not receive full information as prayed for by him.;