Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2010/001158
Name of Complainant : Shri Sheik Ali Hussain
Name of Respondent : National Fisheries Development Board
Date of Hearing : 17.03.2011
ORDER
Shri Sheik Ali Hussain, the appellant has filed this appeal dated 7.10.2010 before
the Commission against National Fisheries Development Board (NFDB), Hyderabad for
not providing him opportunity to inspect the documents, sought through his RTI-request
dated 7.10.2010, which came up for hearing on 17.3.2011. The appellant was absent,
whereas the respondents were represented by Shri C. Muralidharan, CPIO, Dr.
Vasudevappa, AA.
2. The appellant filed RTI-request dated 7.10.2010 requesting for inspection of NFDB
notes, accounts, office documents. The CPIO vide letter dated 25.10.2010 returned the
application for want of fee in prescribed form. The appellant again submitted RTI-request
on 27.10.2010 along with prescribed fee. The CPIO vide letter No.
NFDB/EST/RTI/2010/12124 dated 8.11.2010 has replied to the appellant stating that
during INFISH 2010, it was clearly mentioned in application form that “Reservation of stall
is only by making advance payment. Further under Point No. 2 of terms and conditions it is
indicated that “applications received in the prescribed format along with payment will only
be considered”. The CPIO vide letters dated 4.11.2010 and 24.11.2010 has given him time
for inspection of documents.
3. Aggrieved by the decision of CPIO, the appellant preferred his first-appeal on
19.11.2010, which was not decided by AA.
4. During the hearing the respondents submitted that on appellant’s first-appeal dated
19.11.2010, Senor Executive (F&A) has submitted his comments to the ED (F&A) vide
note dated 11.3.2011 stating that on 19.11.2010 the prescribed records were provided to
the appellant for inspection. The application had asked for some files from other
(technical) sections. As it was already lunch break, he assured the appellant for providing
the same once the concerned officials come back from lunch. The appellant went out for
lunch, taking copies of information, which were provided for inspection. The appellant did
not turn up for inspection of further documents.
-2-
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2010/001158
5. After hearing the respondents and on perusal of the relevant documents on file, the
CPIO is directed to provide another opportunity to the appellant for inspection of
documents on mutually agreed date and time, within four weeks of the receipt of this
order.
The matter is disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/-
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
30.03.2011
Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma)
OSD & Assistant Registrar
Address of the parties:
Shri Sheik Hussain,
Veeravasaram Village,
West Godawari District-534245 (AP)
The CPIO,
National Fisheries Development Board,
Block No. 401-402, Maitrivihar,
HMDA Commercial Complex, Ameerpet,
Hyderabad-500038.
The Appellate Authority,
National Fisheries Development Board,
Block No. 401-402, Maitrivihar,
HMDA Commercial Complex, Ameerpet,
Hyderabad-500038.