Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, Room No. 305 B-Wing,
August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Kama Place
New Delhi
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/000098
Name of Appellant : Sh. Praveen Kumar
(The Appellant was present)
Name of Respondent : M/o Commerce & Industry, Export Inspection
Council of India, NYDMC, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi
(Represented by Sh. Rajeev Pajada,
Addl.Dir.AA, Sh. A.C. Dutta, Jt. Dire. &
Sh. S. K. Tondon, Astt. Dir.)
The matter was heard on : 13.04.2011
ORDER
Sh. Praveen Kumar, the Appellant, filed an RTI application dated 3.11.2010,
seeking the following information:
“(a) Inspection of all files pertaining to all communications (including email) to
EIC&EIA Mumbai about applicant by Sh. S. V. More (then DD Incharge of PTH,EIA
Mumbai) & other officers between September 2008 & July 2009 and certified copy
thereafter.”
The PIO vide letter dated 1.12.2010, replied to the Appellant. Reply of the PIO is
reads as follows:
“In this connection, I am to draw your kind attention to the provision of Section 8 of RTI
Act 2005 under which the information cannot be provided since you have already filed a
case in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi”
Aggrieved with the reply of the PIO, the Appellant has filed an appeal before the
First Appellate Authority (FAA). Finally, not getting information even after filling of
first appeal, the Appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission.
During the hearing the Appellant submits that he has wrongly been denied the
information requested and also that the FAA has not disposed of the appeal within the
period stipulated under the RTI Act. On the other hand the FAA, during the hearing
submits that vide order dated 8.04.2011 he has over ruled the reply of PIO but the
information sought by the Appellant cannot be supplied as the same is very vague.
After hearing the parties and on perusal of the relevant documents on file, the
Commission observes that the CPIO has denied the sought for information without giving
any reason. The information requested cannot be denied merely by saying that the same
is exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act. The PIO is supposed to refer to the
particular subsection of Section 8 of the RTI Act and explain the reasons for denying
information. The Commission takes a serious view of the cryptic reply of the PIO. The
reply of the PIO is set aside and he is hereby warned to be careful in future while
replying to the information seeker.
The Commission also observes that the first appeal dated 7.12.2010 has been
disposed of by the FAA vide decision dated 8.04.2011 which is beyond the period
stipulated under the RTI Act. The FAA, is hereby cautioned and directed to adhere to the
provisions of the RTI Act.
On perusal of the RTI application and replies of the Respondent the Commission
finds that the information sought by the Appellant is neither vague nor exempted under
any of the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, the PIO is hereby directed to allow the
inspection of the concerned files relating to the information sought by the Appellant and
provide certified copies of the desired documents free of cost to the Appellant. The
Commission’s order shall be complied within 15 days of its receipt.
The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
4.05.2011
Authenticated true copy
(S. Padmanabha)
Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar
Copy to:
1. Sh. Parveen Kumar
WZ-6A, Naraina Village
New Delhi-110028
2. The Public Information Officer
Jt. Direction
Export Inspection Council of India
M/o commerce & Industry
Govt. of India
3rd Floor, NDYMCS Cultural Centre Building
1 Jai Singh Road
New Delhi-110001
3. The Appellate Authority
Addl. Director
Export Inspection Council of India
NDYMCS Cultural Centre Building
1 Jai Singh Road
New Delhi-110001