Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.U Dinkar vs Ministry Of Human Resource … on 25 March, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mr.U Dinkar vs Ministry Of Human Resource … on 25 March, 2011
                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                            Club Building (Near Post Office)
                          Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                 Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                            Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000401/11671
                                                                    Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000401

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                              :       Mr. U. Dinkar
                                               Sri Durga Udayanagara Extension PO,
                                               Srinivasangar Surathkal,
                                               Manglore - 575025

Respondent                             :       Mr. Ravindranath
                                               Public Information Officer& Dy. Registrar
                                               National Institute of Technology Karnataka,
                                               Surathkal, Mangalore - 575025

RTI application filed on               :       23/10/2009
PIO replied on                         :       18/11/2009
First Appeal filed on                  :       21/11/2009
First Appellate Authority order        :       21/12/2009
Second Appeal received on              :       08/02/2010

Information Sought:

“1. Please supply the certified copies of the following documents in respect of total expenditure
incurred for tour program of Dr. Sandeep Sancheti, Director NJTK since his date of joining at 1’HTK
for the 47 serial numbers as supplied vide N!TK/RT1- P10/55/2009 dated 13/4-2009 under RTJ Act-2

005. The copy of NITK/RTI-P10/SS/2009 dated 13-4-2009 is attached as Annexure –j

a) Copies of TA/DA claim form containing date, time, departure from and arrival at, mode of
journey, ticket number, distance in KM and fare paid.

b) Copies of Air ticket, Train ticket, Taxi bills etc.

c) Copies of cash voucher/receipt.

d) Supporting official documents based on which the Director initiated each of the program.

PIO’s reply;

“With reference to the letter cited above, all the bills are already strip bounded in different flies of our
institute (about 40-50 files). It is very difficult to remove and replace to its original position. Appellant
may be informed to inspect these bills, ticket voucher etc. in connection with RTI request.”

First Appeal:

Inspection of record will not be helpful since I need photocopies of records which are permissible as
per RTI Act. Moreover after inspection I can get photocopies as per RTI Act hence there is no need to
inspect the records. Therefore I request the Director being the First Appellate authority to provide the
information in the form of certified copies as sought by me in my letter dated 23-10-2009.

Order of the FAA:

The Appellate authority has come to a conclusion that the reply given by the PIO is fair and justified
since the Appellant was provided ample opportunity to inspect the records sought by him, looking into
the voluminous information preserved in strip bounded form. Further removing the records from the
strip bounded form may damage the records/documents. In view of the above Appeal is rejected.

Ground of the Second Appeal:

Request for providing complete information sought. Action must be taken against First Appellate
Authority. Information is being denied malafidely.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant : Absent;

Respondent : Mr. Ravindranath, Public Information Officer& Dy. Registrar on telephone through his
mobile no. 09449052413;

The PIO stated that the records are been strip bound in a manner which makes it difficult to
photocopy the records without opening the binding. He had offered an inspection of the relevant
records to the Appellant who had categorically stated that he wants duly attested photocopies of the
records. All over the country all public authorities has been giving photocopies of various documents,
registers, rule books and so on and no public authority can claim to evolve a system which makes
photocopying not possible. The Commission therefore directs the PIO to photocopy the records sought
by the Appellant and supply them to the Appellant after due attestation.

Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant
free of cost before 20 April 2011.

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
25 March 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SM)