Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.4150/IC(A)/2009
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2009/000383
Dated, the 8th July, 2009
Name of the Appellant: Shri. D.D. Sardana
Name of the Public Authority: The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.
i
Facts
:
1. Both the parties were heard on 8/7/2009.
2. During the hearing, the details of information asked for and the reply given
by the CPIO were discussed. The CPIO stated that:
• the appellant has asked for information relating to an on-going dispute which
is pending before the Court for adjudication;
• the appellant has made attempt to elicit views and opinion of the CPIO
through various forms of queries, which are mainly interrogatory in nature;
• the appellant was trying to extract information for promoting private interests
of the parties against which the respondent is contesting a case before the
Court in the larger public interest.
3. The appellant, who was represented through a representative sought
adjournment of the hearing on the ground that he was not fully prepared. His
plea was rejected by the Commission.
Decision:
4. In response to the RTI application, the CPIO has refused to provide
information u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act, on the ground that the disclosure of information
was not in the public interest, as it might jeopardize the interest of the respondent
in the matter of legal relief already sought for by the Court.
i
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi
1
5. The Appellate Authority has in his order indicated as to how the answers
to various queries would adversely affect the public interest pursued by the
respondent against the enterprise, in question, which has violated the rules.
6. Under Section 2(f) of the Act, a requester is expected to clearly specify the
required information, which should be available in any material form. He is not
expected to elicit views and opinion of the CPIO through various forms of
queries, as attempted in the instant case. In view of this, the appellant is advised
to clearly specify the required information as per section 2(f) of the Act and re-
submit his request for information to the CPIO, who should examine the
application for information and furnish a point-wise response within 15 working
days from the date of receipt of fresh application. If any information is to be
refused, the grounds for denial of information should clearly be indicated for
review if necessary, by the Commission.
7. The appellant would be free to approach the Commission again if he is not
satisfied with the response given by the CPIO.
8. The appeal is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner ii
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Shri. D. D. Sardana, 15 Gagan Vihar, Delhi – 110 051.
2. Shri. A.K. Aggarwal, CPIO, NSIC Ltd., NSIC Bhawan, Okhla Industrial
Estate, New Delhi – 110 020.
3. Shri. S.C. Goyal, Appellate Authority, NSIC Ltd., NSIC Bhawan, Okhla
Industrial Estate, New Delhi – 110 020.
ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle
2