CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00273 dated 4.3.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Gyan Chand Chauradiya
Respondent - Central Information Commission (CIC)
Facts
:
By an application of 24.9.2007 Shri Gyan Chand Chauradiya of Kota,
Rajasthan applied to the Central Information Commission, seeking inspection of
the files containing the following information:
“1. No. of appeals and complaints received during the period
1.1.2006 to 31.8.2007.
2. During this period how many appeals and complaints have
been disposed of.
3. During disposal of the above appeals and complaints, how
many CPIOs have been found at fault, their number in each
case separately be provided.
4. Out of CPIOs, found at fault, number of CPIOs who have
been fined and number of CPIOs against whom disciplinary
action has been taken.
5. Those who have been found guilty under the above Act,
reasons for not penalizing them.
6. No. of appeals made in the Court against your decisions in
appeals and complaints.”
To this he received a pointwise response from CPIO Shri G. Subramanian
both in English and Hindi dated 29.10.07, as below:
“1. Total number of appeals and complaints – 12097 till 18 Oct.,
2007.
2. Appeals / complaints disposed off 7823.
3 & 4 List enclosed.
5. No such information is available.
6. List enclosed.
7. The copies of the Annual Report was forwarded to DOPT on
13th August, 2007 and again on September 6, 2007 (copies
of letters enclosed).”
1
Not satisfied with this response Shri Chauradiya moved an appeal dated
13.11.07 before the appellate authority upon which in his order of 28.12.07 Jt
Secretary Shri L.C. Singhi directed as follows:
“An information can be something which is a part of record and
which is held by or is available with a public authority. CPIO cannot
be expected to answer the outcome of a hypothetical situation or
cannot given an interpretation to an order passed by a judicial
authority or as regards the provision of a particular law.
I have carefully examined the RTI application and the information
furnished in response thereto by the CPIO of the Commission and I
find that there has been no denial of information in any manner.”
The appellant has then moved a second appeal before us specifically
referring to the following:
“I had requested for showing file noting, but you have not take any
action on that but have dismissed the appeal. Is there is no
provision in this Act for showing file noting ? If not, then in another
case, how you have issued instructions to CPIO, President Sectt.
for showing the file noting? This shows your office is following
double standards. On one side you are spending lots of money on
advertisements to make public aware of this Act and you have been
entrusted with the responsibility that public gets information well
within time but on other side by not penalizing your own CPIO you
are depriving the public of their rights.”
The appeal was heard by videoconference on 6.5.2009 at 4.00 p.m. The
following are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Kota
Shri Gyan Chand Chauradiya
Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi
Shri G. Subramanian, Under Secretary
Shri L. C. Singhi, Registrar
Appellant Shri Gyan Chand Chauradiya was specifically asked what further
information he now requires since all the questions raised by him have been
answered. He specified that what he had sought was the inspection of files,
which he has not been permitted thus far. CPIO Shri G.Subramanian on the
other hand submitted that inspection of files would amount to inspecting all the
files up to the date when the application was made on which decisions were2
made by the Commission which clearly invite the mischief of sub sec. (9) of Sec.
7 of the R.T.I. Act as it would divert the resources of the public authority in
servicing the request. Appellate Authority Shri Singhi also submitted that
inspection of files had not been a part of the appeal and would serve no purpose
as the reasons for taking decisions including reasons why penalty has or has not
been imposed is discussed in the decisions announced by the Commission.
DECISION NOTICE
We have heard the parties and examined the records. We find that CPIO
has indeed responded to each of the questions raised by appellant Shri
Chauradiya in his original application. However, these requests were only in
relation to the actual inspection of files. Although the wording of the application
would imply a request for inspection of all files of the Commission, Shri
Chauradiya has clarified in the hearing that what he seeks is to inspect only
those files which pertain to cases dealing with his appeals / complaints or having
a bearing thereon. CPIO Shri Subramanian has also, in his response has
altogether ignored the request for inspection. On the basis of the above, we
decide as follows:
1. Since inspection of all files will decidedly lead to an unmanageable
diversion of CIC resources, the information sought will require to be
specific. Appellant Shri Chauradiya will therefore submit a list of those files
that he wishes to inspect.
2. Upon receipt of this list, Shri Tarun Kumar, CPIO of the Central
Information Commission will organize inspection of the files in the Offices
of the Central Information Commission. However, since this inspection
was not given within 30 days of the receipt of the original application, it will
now be provided free of charge.
3. Besides, we find that because of failure to provide the information sought
to appellant, Shri Chauradiya, or indeed offering him n alternative u/s 7(9)
as is now offered, Shri Chauradiya will now be put to the cost of paying for
3
a visit to and from Delhi which is the only means by which he can in fact
examine the files sought. He is, therefore, awarded compensation under
sub sec. (8)(b) of Sec. 19 of the R.T.I. Act, 2005 to cover cost of 2nd Class
A.C. Train fare from Kota to Delhi and back.
The appeal is thus allowed. Announced in the hearing. Notice of this
decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
6.5.2009
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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
6.5.2009
4