CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00264
Dated, the 17th July, 2008.
Appellant : Shri K. Mohan
Respondents : Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited
This second-appeal by Shri K.Mohan (appellant) against the order of the
Appellate Authority, dated 29.10.2007, came up for hearing on 15.07.2008
pursuant to Commission’s hearing notice dated 28.05.2008. Appellant was
absent, while the respondents were represented by Shri S.Sridhar, CPIO and
Shri S.Gurusamynathan, C.M. (Pers).
2. Respondents pointed out that the three items of information, which the
appellant has listed in his second-appeal dated 11.02.2008, comprise requests for
information which are broader than the scope of the queries originally made by
him in his RTI-application dated 13.08.2007. Part of the information is already
available in the form of priced documents and can be purchased by the appellant
from the respondents. The balance information such as a log and copy of the LC
requested by him were not available for past years. Besides, these are also not
maintained in the form appellant has requested, i.e. work-wise. These are
maintained for each division for all variety of equipment and machines used
there. It is a log-record of the working of those machines on a day-to-day basis.
Respondents stated that this information is available only for the recent times,
say a given year. Being extremely voluminous, disclosing this information to the
appellant will be both expensive in terms of cost and time and, therefore, would
attract the provisions under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
3. Upon hearing the respondents and perusing the submissions of the
appellant made through his second-appeal petition, it is noted that items 1 and 2
of his second-appeal petition regarding certain Annual Maintenance Contract
tender given out by the respondents to M/s.Vasavi Engineering, did not find
mention in the appellant’s first RTI-application (dated 13.08.2007). He cannot
be authorized to bring up new items for disclosure of information at the appellate
stage.
4. As regards item 3 ― viz. the copy of the tender schedule, etc. for the
years 2003 to 2007 ― it is found that these are priced documents, which are
available in the public domain and can be purchased on payment of the listed
price. Respondents were wholly correct in stating that a priced document cannot
be asked to be disclosed to a petitioner through the process of the RTI Act.
Page 1 of 2
5. As regards item 4 ― viz. Log and copy of LC ― in view of what has been
stated by the respondents during the hearing, this information comes within
Section 7(9) and, therefore, cannot be authorized to be disclosed.
6. The appeal is disposed of with these directions.
7. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(A.N. TIWARI)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by –
Sd/-
( D.C. SINGH )
Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar
Page 2 of 2