CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
D- Wing, 2nd Floor,
August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000544
PARTIES TO THE CASE:
Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Baretha
Respondent : Ministry of Finance, Central Bureau of Narcotics,
Gwalior, M.P.
Date of decision : 6.7.2011
BACKGROUND
OF THE CASE:
1. The Appellant vide his RTI Application dated 03/11/2010 had requested
exhaustive and specific information in querries (a) to (m) of his RTI Application
from the CPIO, O/o the Narcotics Commissioner, Gwalior. The information sought
through the specific Questions enlisted in the Appellant’s RTI application is not
being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity but having perused the RTI
Application carefully, the Commission understands that it broadly relates to the
details of DPC meetings held between 1991 to 1997 for considering cases of UDC/
Steno (OG) for promotion to the post of Inspector, the details of the review DPC
constituted during 1998-99 as well as 2002-03 inter alia.
2. The CPIO disposed of the application vide his Order dated 02/12/2010 with
respect to all the Questions asked by the Appellant through his RTI Application.
The CPIO’s reply clearly shows that no information has been denied to the
Appellant; however, the information being exhaustive and voluminous, the CPIO
has requested the Appellant to personally inspect the concerned records relevant to
the information sought by him. The CPIO has further stated that the specific format
in which the information has been sought by the Appellant cannot be created afresh
by the Respondent in the manner as desired by the Appellant.
3. Unhappy and aggrieved with the CPIO’s Order, the Appellant preferred first
appeal before the Deputy Narcotics Commissioner (P & V) & FAA, Central
Bureau of Narcotics, Gwalior on 07/12/2010. The FAA vide its Order dated
07/01/2011 upheld the Order passed by the CPIO.
4. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the Appellant has preferred second appeal
before this Commission. The hearing before the Commission was held on
27/06/2011 where the both the parties were present in person before the
Commission.
DECISION NOTICE:
5. The Commission has have carefully perused through the submissions made
and considered the arguments advanced by both the parties.
6. The Appellant has not raised any grievance as per his second appeal before
the Commission in relation to Question Nos. (b), (e), (g), (h), (i), (j), (l) and (m) of
his RTI Application. The Commission has doubt after having heard both the
parties that the Respondent is more than ready and willing to furnish the
information as desired by the Appellant. It is simply the case of the Respondent
that the quantum of the information sought by the Appellant being exhaustive and
voluminous, the Appellant may be pleased to personally visit the office of the
respondent and inspect the concerned records relevant to his RTI application, to his
own satisfaction.
7. The Respondent is also more than willing to appoint and provide 3 (three) of
its officers to assist the appellant during the inspection process, given the
voluminous nature of information. The written submissions placed on record by
the respondent are indicative of the fact that nothing has been done by the
Respondent to refuse the disclosure of the desired information under the RTI Act.
8. It is further the case of the Respondent that Appellant is seeking fresh
information to be created as per the manner and fashion in which he so desires in a
format prescribed by him. The Appellant must understand that the RTI Act calls
for the disclosure of information as held by the Public Authority and does not
warrant creation of information as per the manner / format / particular arrangement
as desired through any RTI Application. As long as the Respondent is ready and
willing to provide the information in whatever format it is maintained it in its
official records, the Appellant cannot complain.
9. Notably, both the parties present agree that the information, as maintained in
the official records, will be disclosed to the Appellant. The appellant may,
therefore, visit the office of the CPIO or the Respondent public authority between
1000 hours to 1700 hours within 45 days of having received this Order.
10. In line with the submission on behalf of the Respondent during the hearing
before us and the initiative shown by the Respondent in providing the information
to the Appellant under the RTI Act, we also direct the CPIO to appoint 2 to 3
(three) officers of the Respondent who shall help and assist the Appellant, if he so
desires, during such inspection of records.
11. The Appellant be provided with photocopies of the records so inspected and
which pertain to the information sought by him through his present RTI
Application. In such case, the standard cost as per the RTI Act for photocopying be
charged from the Appellant.
12. The Appeal is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/-
( Sushma Singh )
Information Commissioner
July 6, 2011
Authenticated True Copies
( K.K. Sharma )
OSD & Deputy Director
Name of parties :
1. PIO & Asst. Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics, 19 The
Mall, Morar, Gwalior (M.P).
2. Appellate Authority & Dy. Narcotics Commissioner (P&V), Central Bureau
of Narcotics, 19 The Mall, Morar, Gwalior (M.P).
3. Shri A.K. Baretha, Inspector, O/o Chief Controller, Govt. Opium & Alkaloid
Facatoies, Saraswati House, 5th Floor, 27 Nehru Place, New Delhi-19.