Two years ago, Parik had filed an RTI application with Central Public Information Officer, Western Railway seeking information on the tea shop run by the prime minister’s father, according to a report in LiveLaw.
Again now second appeal filed by Pawan Parik, an RTI activist and a lawyer but the Central Information Commission has disposed of an appeal filed via a Right to Information (RTI) application, seeking details about the tea shop of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s father, Damodar Das.
Parik sought certified copies of documents about the license or permit issued for the tea stall in question.
Parik filed a first appeal after he did not receive a reply in this regard and approached the Central Information Commission.
The CPIO, however, claimed that it had not received any RTI application and first appeal before June 17 2020 – when it was received along with a second appeal notice.
The CPIO further submitted that the information sought was too old and that the Ahmedabad division had maintained no record of that period.
Earlier in 2015 it should be noted Congress supporter and social activist Tehseen Poonawalla had sought information under the RTI from the Railway Board as to whether there was any record, registration number or official pass issued to Modi allowing or entitling him to sell tea on trains and at stations.
Then an RTI query revealed that there was no available record to show that Modi was a tea-seller on railway platforms or trains during his childhood.
Quoting the RTI response from the railway ministry, she said: “No such information is available in TG III Branch of Tourism and Catering Directorate of Railway Board.”
Parik had filed a second appeal before the commission previously in 2016, seeking a response from the PMO on his RTI plea regarding the PM’s poll promise of depositing Rs 15 lakh into every citizen’s bank account.
The appeal was disposed by the commission after observing that the response made by the PMO was satisfactory.
In 2017, through an RTI, Parik had sought information regarding the discharge of Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case.
The commission dismissed his second appeal and held that ‘perception’ of the applicant about ‘human rights violation’ is no ground to agitate right to information under the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act.