Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01333, A/08/0294-SM dated 04.10.2007,
07.01.2008
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 05.12.2008
Appellant: Sh. Manu Bhai Tripathi
Respondents: Cantonment Board, Sagar
The Appellant not present inspite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondents, following are present:-
(i) Sh. S. V. R. Chandra Shekhar, FAA
(ii) Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Jain, Sub Engineer
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
2. The Appellant has filed two appeals, namely, Appeal No.
CIC/WB/A/2007/01333, and CIC/WB/A/2007/0294(SM). In both these cases,
the Appellant had approached the CPIO in the Cantonment Board, Sagar, seeking
two sets of information, one set pertaining to the extent of encroachment within
the Cantonment Area and the other pertaining to the tenders invited by the Board
on a particular date for the year 2007-08. The CPIO, in his reply to the request
for information dated 16.03.2007, informed that no tenders were invited/opened
on 13.03.2007 for the year 2007-08. It is noted that the Appellant had once again
approached the CPIO in the Cantonment Board seeking information regarding all
the construction work undertaken by the Cantonment Board during the last 5
years and up to the year 2007-08. The CPIO, in his reply dated 25.06.2007,
quoted Section 7(9) of the RTI Act for not supplying the information sought, but
invited the Appellant to the Board office for inspecting the relevant documents. It
appears the Appellant visited the Board office and inspected the relevant
documents. Thereafter, he filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority in which
he erroneously alleged that since he found, during his inspection, that the
Cantonment Board had undertaken construction activity in the year 2004-05,
therefore, the reply of the CPIO that no tender had been invited for the year
2007-08 was wrong. The Appellate Authority had fixed the hearing for this
appeal in his office, but it seems the Appellant was not willing to go to Bhopal to
attend the hearing in the office of the Appellate Authority but wanted the hearing
to be held in Sagar. Thereafter, he filed this appeal (1333) before this
Commission.
2. In the other matter (294), the Appellant had approached the CPIO on
06.11.2007 seeking a variety of information on encroachment within Cantonment
Board since the year 1988 in which he had sought information on 8 counts. In
response, the CPIO in his letter dated 09.11.2007, intimated him that the
information sought could not be given in the form in which it had been sought
and invited the Appellant to visit the Board office for inspecting the relevant
records. It is noted that the Appellant had objected to this in a letter addressed to
the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board dated 04.11.2007. The CEO
treated this as an appeal and fixed hearing in his office in Bhopal, but the
Appellant was unwilling to attend the hearing on the plea that it should be
conducted in Sagar itself. Thereafter, he has approached this Commission in
second appeal.
3. During the hearing, the submissions of the Appellant were not available as
he was not personally present, inspite of notice. The case was heard in his
absence. The documents submitted by him including the correspondence he
made with both the CPIO and the Appellate Authority in both the cases were
perused. The Respondents present made a few submissions. They argued that in
the appeal No. (1333), the CPIO had rightly informed him that no tender had
been invited/opened on the date mentioned by the Appellant in his application in
the year 2007-08 while the Appellant, after inspection of records, referred to
construction work undertaken in the year 2004-05 and surmised that the original
information given by the CPIO was wrong. In the other appeal No. (294), the
Respondents submitted the information sought being on 8 counts and for the
period beginning 1988, collation of this information from the various files of the
Cantonment Board would be a colossal task and would divert the resources of the
Board disproportionately affecting its regular work and, therefore, had not been
provided in the form it was sought. They submitted that, instead, the Appellant
had been invited to inspect the relevant records which the Appellant did not. `
4. From the above, it is quite clear that both the CPIO and the Appellate
Authority had been quite fair in their approach in dealing with the request for
information on both the occasions. As far as the appeal No. (1333) is concerned, it
is a clear case of misunderstanding on the part of the Appellant as he had sought
information about the tender of the year 2007-08 which, according to CPIO, was
never called/opened on the date mentioned in the Appellant’s application. In the
other matter, we agree with the CPIO that the information sought was extremely
detailed and was for a period covering nearly two decades and could not have
been complied without disproportionately diverting their resources. We also note
that the CPIO had invited the Appellant to inspect the records which shows that
the CPIO was willing to cooperate with the Appellant in sharing the information.
The Appellant has sought directions from this Commission, in both the cases, to
the Public Authority for providing him the information he had sought. In the
background of the foregoing, we find it difficult to accede to the request. If he is
still in need of this information, he should visit the office of the CPIO as
suggested to him and inspect the relevant records. Obviously, if he would require
some of the information, after inspection of records, copies of such information,
can then be provided to him by the CPIO. With these observations, we dispose off
these two appeals.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied
against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the
CPIO of this Commission.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar