CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000095
Dated, the 31st March, 2010
Appellant : Shri Rednam Deepak
Respondents : Visakhapatnam Port Trust
This matter was heard through videoconferencing (VC) on
29.03.2010. Appellant was present in person at NIC VC facility
at Visakhapatnam, while the respondents ― represented by
Shri T.Venugopal, CAPIO ― were present at the same venue.
Commission conducted the hearing from its New Delhi office.
2. Appellant, through his RTI-application dated 30.04.2009, had
made a series of queries regarding recruitment of Traffic Probationary
Officers Class-II, T.M. Department of Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT).
These queries were 18 in number.
3. CPIO furnished reply to the appellant on 21.05.2009 and his
first-appeal was decided on 10.07.2009 by the Appellate Authority,
Shri Ajeya Kallam, Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust.
4. During the hearing, it was noted that information relating to
items at Sl.Nos.1, 2 and 4 had been furnished to the appellant. In
respect of queries at Sl.Nos.3 to 13 (except 4), requested information
was not supplied, because it was claimed that this was held by the
Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT), who conducted the examination
on behalf of the VPT. According to the CPIO, information relating to
queries at Sl.Nos.14 to 18 was not provided although it was held on the
files and records of the public authority.
5. Appellant disputed CPIO’s claim that information relating to any
of his queries was outside the control of the public authority, i.e. VPT.
He read out from a communication he had received from the IIFT to the
effect that all records relating to the above examination were
transferred into the control of the public authority, VPT.
6. It is not possible to clearly make out as to who really holds the
information. It is equally not possible to decide in the course of this
second-appeal as to what parts of the information VPT itself holds as
well as their disclosure liability under the RTI Act. These need to be
AT-31032010-05.doc
Page 1 of 2
decided de-novo after careful consideration and consultation with both
parties by the Appellate Authority.
7. It is accordingly directed that matter be remitted back to the
Appellate Authority, Shri Ajeya Kallam, Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port
Trust for de-novo consideration of this entire request for information
and for a finding about who actually holds the information, i.e. whether
the information was in the control of the third-party, Indian Institute of
Foreign Trade or whether that Institute had transferred the information
already to the VPT. Appellate Authority should also apply his mind to
the point as made by the CPIO that a part of the information was
available with the VPT, but was not disclosed to the appellant. The
reasons for not disclosing the information need to be clearly brought
out and if the requested information was not covered by any of the
exemption-Sections of the RTI Act, a decision for its disclosure be
taken.
8. Matter is accordingly remitted back to the Appellate Authority
with the direction that he shall allow a hearing to the appellant as well
as the CPIO and the holders-of-the-information (and if necessary IIFT)
and take a fresh decision regarding disclosure obligation of the
requested information after de-novo consideration.
9. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
10. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-31032010-05.doc
Page 2 of 2