CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000013
Dated, the 26th February, 2010.
Appellant : Shri R.K. Jain
Respondents : Central Excise, Bangalore-III
This matter was heard partly through videoconferencing (VC) on
23.02.2010 in the presence of both parties. Appellant was present in
person at CIC’s New Delhi office. Respondents ⎯ represented by
Shri K. Kesavan, Additional Commissioner of Central Excise ⎯ were
present at NIC VC facility at Bangalore. Commission conducted the
hearing from its New Delhi office.
2. Through his RTI-application dated 07/19.09.209, appellant
requested CPIO, Shri B. Kumar, for information relating to receipt and
disposal of RTI-applications, pendency of the RTI-applications as on
date, response to the applications ⎯ fully or partly along with details of
the applicants, their addresses, dates, brief subject; monthly and yearly
statements and statistics of these applications submitted by the public
authority to their higher authorities and an inspection of records and
files thereto.
3. CPIO, through his reply dated 25.09.2009 and the Appellate
Authority, through his order dated 10.11.2009, declined to disclose this
information mainly on the ground that its disclosure was unlikely to
serve any public interest if it were provided in the form in which it was
sought. Apart from this, the disclosure was likely to disproportionately
divert the resources of the public authority. Appellate Authority’s
order also spoke about appellant being allowed to inspect the records
held by the public authority to cull from it such information as he
wished to have.
4. Appellant made the point that he was not obliged to explain to
the respondents why he wanted the above information. He stated that
the respondents have no more than 70-odd files from which the
requested information could be provided not by generating an
information, but through the simple process of giving to him copies of
the various applicants’ RTI-applications in these files, the CPIO’s
communications to these applications, the first-appeals as filed before
AT-26022010-07.doc
Page 1 of 2
the Appellate Authority by these parties and the orders of the Appellate
Authority thereto. These are clearly identifiable documents and
photocopying these for provision to the appellant could not be
exaggerated as an enormous task which would divert the resources of
the public authority.
5. Appellant further pointed out that he wished to receive
information pertaining to the processing of RTI-applications by the
public authorities ⎯ both the primary and the first-appellate levels ⎯
because he had noticed certain divergence between the information
furnished by such public authorities to their Ministries and head offices
from where it was transmitted to the CIC, and the actual facts about
these RTI-proceedings at the public authority levels.
6. I am not persuaded by the CPIO’s argument about diversion of
resources if this information were to be provided to the appellant. As
rightly pointed out by the appellant, the numbers of the files were not
extraordinarily large. Asking the officers to take out copies of select
documents from these 70-odd files could not amount to asking too
much.
7. When the matter was put to the CPIO during hearing, he agreed
that the requested documents could be provided to the appellant on his
agreeing to pay the requisite fees under RTI Rules.
8. It is accordingly directed that within three weeks of the receipt
of this order, CPIO should provide to the appellant copies of the
documents mentioned in paragraph 4 above on receipt of the requisite
fee from the appellant.
9. Appeal allowed.
10. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-26022010-07.doc
Page 2 of 2