Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001806 dated 27.02.2009
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 2 February 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Akshay Pant
C/o Shri D. Siva Balan,
Advocate, District Court Complex,
Port Blair.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, O/o the Directorate of Social
Welfare Andaman & Nicobar,
Administration, Goal Ghar,
Port Blair.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri S.K. Haldhar, PIO was present.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 27 February
2009, requested the CPIO for copies of the file noting and other documents
concerning the case of Sri A.K Biswas and others. The CPIO replied on 23 March
2009 stating that the desired information was contained in various files and
would be supplied against payment of fees. Obviously, not satisfied with this
reply, the Appellant preferred an appeal on 4 May 2009 followed by some more
communications to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority disposed
of the appeals in his order dated 7 August 2009. In this order, he directed for
the supply of various documents against payment of copying charges.
Consequently, he was provided with a very large number of documents on 12
August 2009. Not content with the information so provided, he has approached
the CIC in second appeal.
3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was not
present in spite of notice. The Respondent was present in the Port Blair studio
of the NIC. We heard his submissions. The Appellant had sought voluminous
records. The CPIO has already provided him with a large number of documents.
Yet, the Appellant claims that not all the records sought by him have been
provided to him. Instead of providing any further documents at this stage, it
would be useful for the CPIO to arrange inspection of some of the relevant files
CIC/SM/A/2009/001806
by the Appellant so that the Appellant could choose the right documents
desired by him. The copies of such documents then could be provided to him.
4. Therefore, we now direct the CPIO to arrange for the Appellant’s
inspection of the remaining relevant files if any including the file noting within
15 working days from the receipt of this order. After such inspection, if he
chooses to get photocopies of some of the documents, he shall be given those
copies free of cost. However, if there are no more any files or documents on
the items of information sought by him, the CPIO shall inform the Appellant
accordingly.
5. We also note that the information sought was provided very late
rendering the CPIO liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of
Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. However, before we
decide on this, we direct the CPIO to explain in writing if he had any
reasonable cause for this delay. If we do not receive his explanation within 20
working days from the receipt of this order, we will proceed to decide on the
penalty ex parte.
6. The appeal is, thus, disposed off.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2009/001806