CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001551/SG/14504
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001551/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Bhaskar Jada
Bare Pandrangam (village)
Pernodu Post, Sullurpeta Taluk
Nellore District
Respondent : Mr. S. Satish
PIO & Director
ISRO-Department of Space
Antariksh Bhawan,
New Bel Road, Bengaluru-94
RTI application filed on : 24/06/2010
PIO replied on : 27/07/2010
First Appeal filed on : 02/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order on : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal received on : 10/11/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of PIO
1. Cost of equipment and material Cost of equipment and material procured by Telecom SHAR from
procured by Tel. Comms. SHAR April 01,2008 to March 31,2010 s Rs.2,59,29,900.
from 01/04/2008 to 31/03/2010.
2 Authority that Indents/procures Telecom officials based on the Need Aspect Committee approvals,
Tel. Com. Material. availability of budget, will raise indents to procure telecom materials
with necessary approvals of Controller/Director. Procurement is by
Purchase Division as per the approved purchase procedures.
3 Stock Holding authority and The information sought is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)
issuing authority. (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 for security reasons.
4 how many time Stock The physical stock verification of Telecom Division was conducted by
Verification Committee carried stock verification Committee during 2007 & 2008 for 2009-2020, the
out verification for the last ten commencement of physical verification of items in progress.
years.
5 Authority No labour is engaged directly by Telecom. Work contracts are
certifying/recommending tendered, bills for such contract works will certified by supervising
contract bills vis-à-vis payment persons of Telecom and Dy. Head and approved by Head Telecom.
of minimum wage to the labour. Payment will be processed by Accounts. Regarding minimum wages,
rates as applicable from that of the Dist. Collector's orders need to be
paid by the contractor. To this effect a clause is incorporated in the
work orders.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The Appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The Appellant did not receive any order/reply from the FAA.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent Mr. S. Satish, PIO & Director on video conference from NIC-Bengaluru Studio;
The PIO has not given information on query-3. He states that divulging this information could
harm the strategic interest. In view of this the Commission directs the PIO to provide the information
about the designations of the stock holding authority to the Appellant.
The PIO has not provided the appropriate information with respect to query-5. The Appellant has
sought to know if any officer is certifying whether the minimum wages are paid by various contractors
to their labour. If there is any officer who is certifying that the minimum wages are paid to the
labourers on contract, the name and designation of such an officer should be provided. If this is not
being done this should be stated.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant
before 30 September 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
09 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (NS)