CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01128
Dated, the 18th February, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Ram Singh Chauhan
Respondents : Accountant General (A&E), Agartala
This matter came up for hearing on 15.01.2009. Appellant was present in
person, while the respondents were represented by Shri Shyamala Purkayastha,
Sr.Accounts Officer.
2. Appellant’s RTI-application dated 18.10.2006 comprised the following
queries:-
“1. Why my registered letter dated 28th January 1991 addressed to the
A.G. (Accounts), Tripura, Agartala duly received but was not
answered as yet. Reason of lackadaisical attitude to the official
concerned, be intimated.
2. Certified copy duly attested and counter signed by competent
authority of Audit Report (U.K. Academy, AGT) dated
20-12-1984.
3. Date of receipt letter No.F.I(18)UKA/93/817 dated 26-11-93,
addressed to you by Headmaster, UKA, AGT., be intimated why its
veracity was not checked from your end? Information in this
connection should be lucid and conclusion.
4. Why you could not implement your own order No.Pen-
I/C&AG/Complaint/90-92/3283 dated 18th September 1992 –
details kindly be furnished.
5. Under what circumstance, you had advised me, take up matter with
Government, vide your office letter Pen-I/C&AG/Complaint/2003
dated 21-10-2005 (copy endorsed to me) whereas you could not
settle the issue in question. Who is responsible, for this entire
gamut of issue, in question? Your answer in this connection will be
highly appreciated from this end.”
3. A reply was furnished to the appellant by the CPIO on 17.11.2008, which
was largely on the lines that the files and records referred to in the appellant’s
RTI-application were over 15 years old, which respondents were unable to locate
in spite of searching every “nook and corner of the Section”.
AT-18022009-08.doc
Page 1 of 3
4. Appellate Authority, in his order dated 28.06.2008, noted that the requests
for information at Sl.Nos.1, 4 and 5 in the appellant’s RTI-application was not a
request for information, but for explanation which the respondents were not
obliged to give under the RTI Act. In spite of that, Appellate Authority directed
the CPIO to make an effort to locate the requested files / records so that the
appellant’s request for information could be satisfied.
5. As regards the queries at Sl.Nos.2 and 3, Appellate Authority directed the
CPIO to make all efforts to trace the records so that it could be provided to the
appellant.
6. Following the direction of the Appellate Authority, the CPIO furnished a
fresh set of information to the appellant through his communication dated
28.08.2008, which read as follows:-
“1. A copy of the letter dated 28-01-1991 has been obtained from the
appellant and it is seen that the issues in the aforesaid letter that
concern this office have been addressed as per relevant rules.
2. As stated by the appellant in his letter dated 23-06-2006, he had
already received a coy of the audit note dated 20-12-1984 from the
Headmaster, Umakanta Academy. As such supply of the same
again is not felt necessary.
3. A copy of the letter dated 26-11-1993 has been obtained from the
Umakanta Academy and it is seen that the issues in the aforesaid
letter that concern this office have been addressed as per relevant
rules.
4. Letter dated 18-09-1992 was issued by this office to the
Headmaster, Umakanta Academy, Agartala with a request to make
necessary correct entries in the Service Book of the appellant if
there was any discrepancy between the entry in the Service Book
and that of in the IPS (1975). Accordingly the Headmaster,
Umakanta Academy reconciled the discrepancy and made
necessary correct entry in the Service Book. As a result of such
correction by the Headmaster, Umakanta Academy, there was no
change in the amount of pay and allowances and pensionary
benefits.”
7. Appellant has now come in appeal against that order of the CPIO.
8. Appellant has contested the CPIO’s contention that most of the records
relating to appellant’s RTI-queries were untraceable and that what has been
provided to him was all that the respondents could locate in regard to the
information which the appellant had requested.
AT-18022009-08.doc
Page 2 of 3
9. On perusal of the submissions made before me, I find that Appellate
Authority had correctly concluded that a large part of the information which
appellant had sought was in the nature of queries for explanation and not
information. He had directed the CPIO to locate as much information as he
could, given the dated nature of the appellant’s requests. Accordingly, CPIO
furnished to him as many documents as he could lay his hands on.
10. I am persuaded by the submissions of the respondents that it was not
possible for them to do any further research in this matter on account of the fact
that most of the records are unavailable and building these shall be expensive as
well as unproductive (Section 7(9) is attracted).
11. In view of the above, it is directed that there shall be no further disclosure
of information as regards these queries of the appellant.
12. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
13. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-18022009-08.doc
Page 3 of 3