CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00902
Dated, the 28th November, 2008.
Appellant : Shri Ram Bilas Pandey
Respondents : Comptroller & Auditor General
This matter came up for hearing on 26.11.2008 in response to
Commission’s notice dated 01.11.2008. Appellant was absent, while the
respondents were represented by Shri R. Srinivasan, Director (Legal).
2. The matter in this second-appeal is related to appellant’s RTI-application
dated 26.12.2007 made to CPIO, Shri Deepak Anurag, PD (Staff).
The information requested was as follows:-
“List giving names of the various firms of chartered accountants having
points score of more than 30 and names of the audits allotted to them for
the financial year 2007-2008 as compared to similar information for the
audit allotted to them for financial year 2006-2007 with the likely fee to
be received by each of them.”
3. CPIO’s reply dated 29.01.2008 read as follows:-
“I am to refer to your application received under RTI Act and to say that
the information sought you [sic] is available in our official web site
www.cag.gov.in. The list of empanelled firms can be viewed ‘station
wise’. The site also contains a separate list of all firms qualifying for
major audits ie audits carrying fees of Rs.1.00 lakh and above. No
separate list of firms having basic point of more than 30 is maintained.”
4. Appellate Authority’s order dated 06.05.2008 stated the following:-
“2. As regards the likely fee to be received by CA firms, no such
information is obtained/maintained by this office. This office receives
information about the actual fee paid to firm as intimated by the
respective public sector undertaking. The information regarding actual
fee paid / received by the CA firms is also available in the respective
Annual Accounts of the Company. Further, disclosure of any information
regarding the likely fee to be charged would come within the exemption
clauses under Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. ThePage 1 of 2
Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General as the appellate authority has
seen and approved.”
5. The appellant in his second-appeal has stated that even if the information
was not maintained in the form it was requested, respondents were obliged to
generate this information for the convenience of the appellant. He further stated
“I just can not understand that in absence of the information of fee
payable by each company for its audit, how a decision at CAG is taken for
allotting an audit to one firm of chartered accountants or the other
without knowing the fee payable in respect of that audit and co-relating
the same to the basic size / strength of the allottee firms. It would mean
that a firm of chartered accountants having lesser strength than the others
may be allotted an audit which is bigger in fee payable. In fact this is
exactly my apprehension that there does not appear to be any
reasonableness or logic in allotment of audits which perhaps is done in an
arbitrary manner and it is for this reason only that the required for
information in the desired format is being denied to me.”
6. After going through the submissions made by both sides, I find no
infirmity in the orders of the Appellate Authority as well as the CPIO. They
have given to the appellant the information as it is maintained by them. As some
part of the information is not monitored or maintained, respondents have rightly
declined to disclose this information to the appellant. Appellant’s right to receive
information is limited by the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Respondents
cannot be forced to search records to collect and collate information when it is
known that a certain set of information is not centrally maintained and searching
it out will be expensive and a drain on respondents’ resources.
7. In view of the above, I am not in a position to uphold the appeal of the
appellant, which is rejected.
8. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 2 of 2