CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001275/13254
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001275
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Trilochan Mahato
S/o Sh. Jay Ram Mahato
R/O WZ-150/4. Near Primary
School Qtrs. Madi Pur Village
New Delhi-110063
Respondent : Mr. J. K. Chandel
CPIO & Dy. Director
Regional Office,
ESI Corporation, Ministry of Labour
Rajendra Bhawan,
Rajendra Place, New Delhi – 110008
RTI application filed on : 26/12/2010
Reply of PIO : not replied
First appeal filed on : 25/01/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 06/04/2011
Second Appeal received on : 11/05/2011
Information Sought by Appellant:
Inspections Reports along with complete enclosures of the given employers of Central Divisional
Office and the copy of the noting sheets of the concerned employers files where those inspection
reports have been dealt with up to the realization of amount, if pointed out by the Insurance Inspector.
Grounds of the First Appeal:
No information provided.
Order of the FAA:
“The appellant has sought information in respect of 30 units about their Inspections Report & Noting
Sheet as the information pertains to the employers (third party information). A reference was made to
the respected employer calling for objections if any for providing the information. A large number of
employers have objected to the furnishing of information about their units. Some of the employers
have also asked to specific reason / purpose for seeking the information about third party by the
applicants.
On perusal of the records, it is found that Smt. Saraswati Rawat, SSO (Legal) in ESIC has also
strongly objected to the dissemination of the information stating therein that some interested persons
have been hatching a conspiracy against her h) way of making fake complaint against her and seeking
certain information against hr. as these Inspection Report were submitted by her to the ESIC during
the course of her working as Insurance Inspector.
Section 8 (h) — Provides for exemption from furnishing the information which would impede the
process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The inspection Report of some of
these employers have been cited as document while framing the Charge Sheet against Srnt. Rawat.
The objections raised by Smt. Rawat appears to be justified. As her case still is tinder Departmental
Page 1 of 3
Enquiry and dissemination of information relating to these remarks is likely to impede the process of
departmental enquiry and therefore warrants to be denied under this exemption clause.
Similarly, Sec 8(1) provides for exemption of discloser of personal information the disclosure of
which has no relationship to any public activity or interest is also applicable to the case since the
Inspection Report / Noting Sheet dealing with this reports exclusively relate to the individuals
employers and has no relevance to any public activity or interest of the Information Seeker. No larger
public interest by the disclosure of such information would he served.
Section 11 deals with the third party information provides for giving opportunity to the third party
against the proposed disclosure. As per objections raised by many a employers of these units, the
request of the third party i.e. employers cannot be ignored in this case as they have genuine grievances
against supply of the information to the Information Seeker.
I have considered the view of these third party employers and have found that they have genuine
grounds for non furnishing of the information I documents. In view of the above said 1. A. K.
Verma ,AC. ARD/FAA orders that the information sought by the appellant may not be provided under
section 8 (h). (j) and Section Ii of the RTI Act, 2005, as per reasons recorded in the above said paras.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Anjani Kumar representing Mr. Trilochan Mahato;
Respondent: Mr. J. K. Chandel, CPIO & Dy. Director; Mr. A. K. Verma, First Appellate Authority;
The PIO claims that he sent an interim reply on 03/02/2011 which he has shown to the
Commission. The so called interim reply gives no information but states, “in this connection it is
informed that information sought by you is too voluminous. However, information is being gathered
from the concerned branches and will be provided as soon as received from the same.” The RTI
application was filed on 26/12/2010 and received in the office of the PIO on 29/12/2010. The applicant
had sought inspection reports carried out by an inspector of ESIC of 30 units. The PIO has given no
reasons for denying the information and the FAA Mr. A. K. Verma has erred in claiming exemption
under Section 8(1)(h). He has stated that an inquiry is goingon against the inspector Mrs. Rawat who
has made the inspection report. The FAA has further claimed using great imagination that disclosing
inspection reports filed by Mrs. Rawat will impede the process of the departmental inquiry against
Mrs. Rawat. How disclosing the inspection reports made by Mrs. Rawat could impede an inquiry
being conducted against Mrs. Rawat has not been explained at all. The PIO claims that third parties
whose units have been inspected have objected to releasing the information. The Commission has been
shown some of the letters given by the units which had been inspected and they have objected to
releasing the inspection reports claiming confidentiality. These have no basis in law and it also
interesting to note that some of the letters have been sent after 03/02/2011 when the PIO has stated that
the records are very voluminous and was collating the records. It has been admitted that all the 30
reports sought by the Appellant were furnished by the same inspector. It is inconceivable that to obtain
the information about the inspection report submitted by one inspector the PIO takes such a long time.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information sought by the Appellant providing
attested photocopies of the inspector of the units before 20 July 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
Page 2 of 3
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information
within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the
requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20
(1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission
to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 03 August 2011 at 2.30pm
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the
appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before
the Commission with him.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
05 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AA)
Page 3 of 3