CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
Tel.: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2007/01220/SG/1260
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01220/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Mahabir Singh,
WZ- 1664, Jail Road, Nangal Raya,
Delhi – 110046.
Respondent 1 : Mr. C. R. Garg,
Dy. Inspector General (Prison) & PIO,
Office of the Director General of Prisons,
Prison Headquarters, Tihar,
New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 07/07/2007 PIO replied : 25/07/2007 First appeal filed on : 28/07/2007 First Appellate Authority order : 14/08/2007 Second Appeal filed on : 18/09/2007
Details of information required as under:
S.No. Information Sought PIO’s Reply
1. Please supply the certified copies of the The information sought by the Appellant cannot
all bills regarding the local purchasing be provide since it attracts Section 8 (3) of the
from Subhash Nangal Raya in the RTI Act, 05, which states “any information
financial year 1961-62 and 1962-63 fro relating to any occurrence, event or matter which
Central Jail. has taken place, occurred or happened twenty
years before the date on which any request is
made under Section : Provided that where any
question arises as to the date from which the said
period of twenty years has to be computed, the
decision of the Central Govt. shall be final,
subject to the usual appeals provide for in this
Act” hence the application for photocopy of the
above mentioned documents is rejected.
2. Please state the year of the planning & As above.
construction of Central Jail at Tihar and
the which government dept. has made
the said planning & construction.
3. Please supply the certified copies of the As above.
survey/planning made before the
construction of Central Jail and also
state the starting date of construction and
completion of the Central Jail.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
The FAA said that the decision taken by PIO, PHQ is right because the information sought attracts
Section 8 (3) of the RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Present:
Appellant: Mr. Mahabir Singh
Respondent: Mr. C. R. Garg
The respondent agrees that he has made a mistake in applying Section 8 (3). Section 8 (3) makes it all
the other subsections of Section 8 (1) and allows only exemptions under Subsection (a), (c ) and (i)
To be applied for denying information. Thus after 20 years 7 of the exemption clauses of the
Section 8 (1) do not apply. The PIO has since made efforts to get the information and has
shown evidence that the said information is not available with the Executive Engineer PWD
Div. M332 and Deputy Supdt. Provision Central jail Tihar.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the two letters from PWD and Deputy Supdt. Provision to the appellant
before 30 January 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
23 January 2009
(For any further correspondence, please mention the decision number for a quick disposal)