Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
(Adjunct to Decision No. 3752/IC(A)/2008 dated 5/03/2008)
Decision No. 3881/IC(A)/2008
F. No. CIC/MA/A/2009/00083
Dated, the 17th April, 2009
Name of the Appellant : Mrs. Marina Fernandes
Name of the Public Authority : O/o the Development Commissioner,
SEEPZ SEZ, Mumbai
(M/o Commerce & Industry), GOI.
1
Facts
:
1. Both the parties were heard on 16.04.2009.
2. In our decision No. 3752/IC(A)/2008 dated 5th March, 2008 a show cause
notice was issued to the CPIO, Dr. R.K. Mitra, Director, Department of
Commerce for non-compliance of the decision passed by Shri P.K. Chaudhery,
Additional Secretary & Appellate Authority of the respondent. The CPIO and the
concerned custodian of the requested information submitted that the requested
information can not be furnished as it does not exist.
3. The appellant contended that it was difficult to believe that the requested
information was not available. If it were so, the Appellate Authority, Shri P.K.
Chaudhery would not have ordered for disclosure of the information vide his
order dated 28th August, 2008. She alleged that the respondent was withholding
the requested information for malafied reasons.
Decision:
4. In view of what Dr. R.K. Mitra, CPIO and the concerned custodian of the
information, Shri P.S. Raman, have submitted, the Appellate Authority, Shri P.K.
If you don’t ask, you don’t get – Mahatma Gandhi
1
Chaudhery has erred. He has ordered for disclosure of information, which is not
maintained or not available with the respondent. He is therefore directed to re-
examine the matter and ascertain whether the information asked for by the
appellant, Mrs Marina Fernandes, is available or not. If it does not exist, he
should clearly state as to what was the ground for passege of direction to the
CPIO for disclosure of the information. The Appellate Authority should also
ensure that the requested information is furnished at the earliest, if it exists. If it
does not, he ought to make a categorical statement to that effect so that the
appellant would be able to seek legal remedy in the matter. The appeal is
therefore remanded back to the Appellate Authority of the respondent to review
its’ decision of dated 28/08/2008.
5. Needless to mention, the Appellate Authority of the respondent should
provide an effective opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties, namely
the appellant and the CPIO, including the concerned officials who may be the
custodian of information. The matter should be disposed of within one month
from the date of issue of this decision notice. The appellant would thereafter be
free to approach the Commission again if she is not satisfied with the order of the
Appellate Authority.
6. The appellant is seemingly affected due to non-payment of wages/dues by
her employer, a Company which probably does not exist now. As there are no
provision in the Act for redressal of grievances regarding non-payment of salary
and wages by the employers, the appellant is advised to seek legal remedy in the
matter.
7. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
2
Name and address of parties: 2
1. Mrs. Marina Fernandes, 30/32, Vijayanagar Apartments Marol, Maroshi
Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059.
2. Shri P.K. Chaudhery, Additional Secretary & Appellate Authority, D/o
Commerce, Min. of Commerce & industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Dr. R.K. Mitra, Director & CPIO, D/o Commerce, Min. of Commerce &
industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. Shri P.S. Raman, PIO, O/o the Development Commission, SEEPZ Special
Economic Zone, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400096.
All men by nature desire to know – Aristotle
3