CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.2686/ICPB/2008
F. No. PBA/2008/391
August 12, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19
[Hearing on 30.7.2008 at 12.00 noon]
Appellant: Mr. Shashi Kuchhal, Jaipur
Public authority: Export Inspection Council of India
Mr. S.K. Tandon, Asstt. Dir & CPIO
Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Addl. Dir & AA
Parties Present: For Respondent:
Mr. S.K. Tandon, Asstt. Dir & CPIO
Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Addl. Dir & AA
For Appellant:
Mr. Shashi Kuchhar
Mr. Arjun Kuchhar
FACTS
:
The appellant has sought information under RTI Act by his application
dated 26.6.2007 addressed to PIO, Export Inspection Council of India requesting
information pertaining to increase in the rent of the premises of sub-office of
Jaipur. The PIO vide letter dated 8.10.2007 requested the appellant to seek
specific information in his application. Again vide letter dated 12.10.2007 the
appellant has requested for enhanced payment of rent and also payment of
electricity bills and PIO has stated such issues cannot be taken under RTI Act.
Since the appellant is not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO he has
preferred an appeal on 25.10.2007 and the AA has disposed of this appeal vide
letter dated 22.10.2007 by which he informed though they have agreed to
provide the enhancement of rent since he has not carried out additions and
alterations as per their agreement they continued in the old premises and
vacated and therefore there is no question of payment of any enhanced rent.
This has resulted in filing this appeal before the Commission on 5.12.2007. He
has also followed it with further document on 14.02.2008. Comments were
called for vide letter dated 12.5.2008 which was received from Export Inspection
Council of India on 5.6.2008.
DECISION:
2. This case came up for hearing on 30.7.2008, which was attended by the
appellant in person as well as the PIO and AA. I have gone through the RTI
1
application and other replies received in this connection. The appellant is
requesting for enhancement of rent for his premises by the EIC and he has
stated during the hearing that he has already carried out additions and alterations
as per the agreement and he was also prepared for lease, but whereas the EIC
has not occupied and the building has been vacated by them. Therefore he is
quite aggrieved with the reply of CPIO. The Commission has no mandate to give
any direction to EIC to enhance his rent etc. The Commission can only direct the
Public Authority to provide information that is available with them. The CPIO has
been directed to provide the entire file which is dealt with the subject of
enhancement of this building for the appellant’s inspection on a mutually
convenient date and time. This file should be made available in the office of
Deputy Director, Export Inspection Agency, Sub-office, Jaipur. After inspection,
he can ask for relevant copies which will be given to him on payment of
necessary fees. On the above lines, the appeal is disposed of.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar)
Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :
1. Mr. S.K. Tandon, Asstt. Dir & CPIO, Export Inspection Council of India,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry, 3rd Floor, NDYMCA Cultural Centre
Building, 1, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi – 110 001.
2. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Addl. Dir & AA, Export Inspection Council of India, Ministry
of Commerce & Industry, 3rd Floor, NDYMCA Cultural Centre Building, 1, Jai
Singh Road, New Delhi – 110 001.
3. Mr. Shashi Kuchhal, Maya Mansion, Opp. G.P.O. M.I. Road, Jaipur – 302001.
2