CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00043
Dated, the 08th July, 2008.
Appellant : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Srivastava
Respondents : Khadi and Village Industries Commission
This matter came up for hearing on 30.06.2008 pursuant to Commission’s
hearing notice dated 28.04.2008. Appellant was present through his
representative, Shri S.N.Tewari. Respondents were represented by
Shri S.P.Singh, Resident Director and Shri Dineshwar Singh, CPIO.
2. The appellant had filed his original RTI-application on 04.12.2006
comprising 12 queries. This matter came up for hearing before the Commission
earlier in appeal (No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00614) on 30.07.2007, when it was
remitted back to the AA for de-novo consideration.
3. The AA gave his decision on 15/16.10.2007, which has now been
challenged before the Commission in second-appeal.
4. Out of 10 items of queries contained in the original RTI-application of the
appellant, presently under appeal are queries at Sl.Nos.4, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
5. The respondents pointed out that the matter which the appellant was now
agitating before the Commission was over 28 years old and was still before the
High Court in adjudication. He stated that all efforts have been made to provide
information to the appellant and nothing has been withheld from him.
6. Copy of the appellant’s RTI-application is enclosed to this order as
Annexe. The above-mentioned five items of information and their disclosure
liability under the provisions of the RTI Act are discussed below:-
Item 4:
During the hearing, the appellant’s representative said that the appellant’s
interest was in receiving details about the rental collected by the respondents, viz.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission from the Match Department for the
portion of their premises occupied by the latter.
The respondents categorically stated that no such rental has been collected
in any years till today. Since this information is complete in itself, there shall be
no further disclosure obligation as regards this.
Page 1 of 2
Item 7:
The respondents stated that there was no requirement of obtaining any
Court permission before registering a property. The presumption of the appellant
that there was any such stipulation was denied by the respondents.
In view of this disclosure, there shall be no further disclosure obligation
as regards this.
Item 8:
This is an explanation demanded by the appellant from the respondents.
As it does not come within the definition of ‘information’ under Section 2(f) of
the RTI Act, there is no requirement to answer this.
Item 9:
The appellant’s representative stated that the appellant was interested in
receiving a copy of a document dated 17.02.1992 in which the decision to
appoint Shri K.P.Tiwari as “mantry” of the Khadi & Village Industries
Development Counsil, Varanasi. The respondents provided a copy of this letter
to the appellant during the hearing. As the requested information has been
disclosed to the appellant, there shall be no further disclosure obligation as
regards this item.
Item 10:
The respondents wanted some time to examine whether this information
could be given.
It is directed that respondents may take two weeks from the date of the
receipt of this order to take a decision in this matter and communicate the same
to the appellant.
Appellant shall be free to approach the Commission if he is not satisfied
with the respondents’ reply.
7. Matter disposed of with these directions.
8. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
(A.N. TIWARI)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 2 of 2