CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00036
Dated, the 19th January, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar
Respondents : The Oriental Insurance Company of India
This matter was heard through videoconferencing on 22.12.2008.
Appellant was present at NIC Studio at Indore. Respondents were present at the
NIC facility at CIC Office (at New Delhi), from where the Commission
conducted the hearing.
2. Appellant’s RTI-application dated 14.10.2007 comprised the following
24 queries:-
Page 1 of 3
3. CPIO, through his communication dated 15.11.2007 and the Appellate
Authority, through his decision dated 17.12.2007 declined to disclose this
information to the appellant on the ground that this information was now a
subject matter of an ongoing criminal action by the appellant against the officers
of the public authority and hence the respondents were not obliged to disclose
this information to the appellant.
4. Appellant, in his written-arguments submitted to the Commission, has
said that the case which the respondents were referring to has been filed by the
appellant against the officers of the public authority and not against the public
authority. He has also pointed out that the Appellate Authority has not given a
reasoned order regarding the disclosure obligation corresponding to each of the
appellant’s 24 queries.
5. A perusal of the document shows that several aspects of his
RTI-application had not been examined by the respondents owing perhaps to the
fact that they were so strongly focused on the criminal proceeding to which these
items of information are apparently related. What was necessary was that they
examined each item of the RTI-query in the context of the provisions of the RTI
Act, especially the exemption provisions under Section 8(1), the public interest
under Section 8(2) and the third-party implications of certain items of
information under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. If this were done, a clearer
determination regarding the disclosure liability corresponding to these queries
would have emerged.
6. In view of the above, it is directed that the matter be remitted back to the
Appellate Authority with the direction that within four weeks of the receipt of
this order, and after de-novo consideration of appellant’s first-appeal and the
submissions now made before the Commission by the respondents, he will give a
speaking order relating to each item of appellant’s query examining, in the
process, all aspects of such query.
7. Appeal accordingly disposed of.
Page 2 of 3
8. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 3 of 3