Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/001211
Dated 1st October, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Mr. Manas Ranjan Senapati
Name of the Public Authority : Prasar Bharati, New Delhi.
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI application on 05.05.09 with the CPIO, Ministry of
I&B , New Delhi requesting for the following information:
(i) All the decided cases repeat all the decided cases, the reopening of
which would open Pandora’s Box (as mentioned in point 5 of the
minutes of the meeting held on 21.03.06).
(ii) The interpretation given by the Ministry (I & B), which happens to be
in line with the interpretation of the committee (as mentioned in last
sentence of point No. 2 of the minutes of the meeting held on
21.03.06)
The CPIO replied on 10.06.09 stating that the RTI application has been
transferred to Mr. S K Garg, Under Secretary/CPIO vide letter
No.1601/59/2009-BA(E) dated 04.06.09 and informiung the Applicant that
the information sought is not specific / clear, hence it cannot be provided.
Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed his First appeal on 23.06.09
appealing against the decision of the CPIO. The Appellate Authority replied
05.08.09 upholding the decision of the CPIO and at the same time inviting the
Applicant to inspect records on a date and time mutually agreed between him
and the CPIO. Being aggrieved with this reply the Applicant filed his Second
appeal before the CIC on 14.08.09 reiterating his request for the information
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing on 1st October, 2009.
3. Mr. R K Dhall, Dy. Director & CPIO and Mr. S R Pandey, Consultant
represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the para no 5 of the minutes of meeting held
on 21.03.06 is a general statement made by the Committee indicating that
the cases already decided need not be reopened as it would open a Pandora’s
box and that no such list of cases is being maintained by the Public Authority.
The Commission noted that the decision not reopen cases already decided has
been taken at a meeting held under Chairmanship of the AIR on 21.3.6
attended by a number of senior level officials and is of the considered opinion
that a decision taken not to open up past cases as it would open a ‘pandora’s
box’, by such a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Competent
Authority, in a participatory, democratic manner should be upheld and denies
disclosure as the disclosure is personal in nature and has no relation to any
public activity or interest. Also, as pointed out by the CPIO this was a general
statement made during the course of the discussions and did not refer to a
particular case and hence the Public Authority has no list of any such cases.
6. The Commission noted the Appellate Authority had invited the Appellant for
inspection of records in connection with his RTI request, and advices to
appellant to avail this opportunity on a mutually convenient date for any
further information he required.
7. The appeal is disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian)
Assistant Registrar
Cc:
1. Mr. Manas Ranjan Senapati,
Assistant Engineer,
Plot No. 497-498-499,
Near Banker’s Enclave,
Prachi Vihar, Bhubaneswar, 751010.
2. The CPIO
Prasar Bharati,
O/o the DDA (E), DG; AIR,
Akashvani Bhawan,
Sandan Marg,
New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority
Prasar Bharati,
O/o the Director (A), DG:AIR,
Akashvani Bhawan,
Sandan Marg,
New Delhi.
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC