Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01589 -SM dated 30.11.2007
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 05.01.2009
Appellant: Shri Madan Singh Tomer
Respondent: Ordnance Factory, Itarsi, Ministry of Defence
Appellant not present in person but represented by Shri R. S. Chhonker.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following are present:
(i) Sh. O. P. Kushwaher, AGM, PIO
(ii) Sh. S. C. Sardar, Foreman OFI
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had approached the CPIO in his application dated
11.06.2007 for a number of information such as the copy of the lease agreement
of certain houses in favour of one organization called WWA and a list of
contractors and suppliers to the Ordnance factory. The CPIO, in his reply dated
26.06.2007 simply informed him that some of the information sought was
exempt from disclosure while for some others, he asked for the deposit of Rs.
3500/- as fee. The Appellant filed an appeal against this before the Appellate
Authority who disposed off the appeal without giving any relief. Not content with
his order, he has now approached the Commission in second appeal.
3. On behalf of the Appellant, it was submitted that none of the information
sought was provided by the Respondents. On careful examination of the
documents enclosed with the appeal, we find that, indeed, the Respondents have
given no information to the Appellant. Instead, they have asked for depositing Rs.
3500/- towards the likely cost of the copies of the records to be provided. During
the hearing, the Respondents were not able to explain the basis for arriving at
such a huge amount of money for providing the information. After perusing
through the records, we find that the CPIO should have provided, without any
difficulty, all the information that the Appellant had asked for in part One of his
application. As far as the part Two of his application is concerned, the
information sought generally related to various other activities being run by
organizations in the premises of the Ordnance Factory. If these activities are
being run directly by the management of the Public Authority, then the CPIO is
bound to provide the information in regard to those activities also. However, if
these activities are being run by organisations which are not part of the Ordnance
Factory management, the CPIO should clearly mention in his reply that the
Public Authority had no direct role in the management or running of those
organisations. In that case, the Appellant would, if he so desires, approach those
organisations directly for information.
4. After hearing the submissions made by both the parties and after carefully
examining the records, we direct the CPIO to provide all the information sought
by the Appellant in part One of his application within 15 working days from the
receipt of this order. As far as part Two is concerned, the CPIO should either
provide the information sought or clearly inform the Appellant that the Public
Authority have no relationship with the management of these organisations or
these activities.
5. With the above directions, this appeal is disposed off. 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