CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No. CIC/S/A/2009/000136
Appellant : Shri S. N. Gupta
Public Authority : HUDCO
(through Shri S.S. Gaur, Executive Director (Law))
Date of Hearing : 11.2.2009
Date of Decision : 11.2.2009
Facts
By his letter of 18.8.2008, the appellant had requested for information on 20
points.
2. The CPIO vide his letter dated 19.9.2008 had declined to provide the
information on certain points in terms of the exemption clauses of section 8 (1) of the
RTI Act.
3. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant had filed an appeal, and the Appellate
Authority vide letter dated 28.11.2008 had upheld the decision of the CPIO.
4. The present appeal is directed against the order of CPIO/AA.
5. The matter was heard on 11.2.2009. The appellant appeared before the
Commission. HUDCO is represented by officer named above. It is the submission
of Shri Gaur that the information has been denied to the appellant under the
exemption clauses of section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, as information sought by him is
personal in nature in respect of certain past and present officers of HUDCO and also
affects commercial interests of the HUDCO.
6. On the other hand, it is the submission of the appellant that HUDCO is a
public institution and he is seeking information to expose the corrupt and tainted
officers and their malpractices in the discharge of their official duties.
7. It is noticed that the information sought by the appellant is regarding officers
some of whom have retired from high positions and some are still serving in senior
positions. As the number of such officers appears to be very large, it would appear
that the documents requested for by the appellant are voluminous in nature. It is also
noticed that the appellant has requested for information regarding transactions which
took place in the past and be is not seeking any information regarding the current
transactions. In this view of the matter, it would appear that the commercial interests
of HUDCO are not likely to be prejudiced if information regarding past transactions
is disclosed to the appellant. However, as mentioned above, the documents
requested for by the appellant are voluminous in nature. Hence, it would be
expedient if CPIO is first directed to allow inspection of the relevant records by the
appellant. The question of providing copies of the documents could be decided at a
later stage after the appellant has identified the relevant documents for obtaining
copies thereof.
DECISION
8. In view of the above, the order of the CPIO & Appellate Authority is partially
set aside to the extent that CPIO would allow inspection of the relevant documents
by the appellant on a mutually convenient date. After such inspection, if the
appellant requests for copies of certain documents, the issue would be decided by the
CPIO. If the appellant is not satisfied with the decision of CPIO, he would be at
liberty to move the Commission again.
9. The order of the Commission may be complied within 06 weeks time.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy, Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this
Commission
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar