Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No. 3751/IC(A)/2008
F. No. CIC/MA/C/2009/0018
Dated, the 5th March, 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Shailendra Kumar Jha
Name of the Public Authority : The Fertilizer Corpn. Of India Ltd.
1
Facts
:
1. Both the parties were heard today, i.e. 5/03/2009.
2. The complainant has asked for information regarding the details of FIRs
filed by the respondent and the cases that have been resolved by the Police. He
also sought for details of expenditure incurred on hiring of security personnel.
3. The CPIO has furnished partial information while the remaining
information has been refused on the ground of paucity of staff for compilation of
information. A part of information has been refused u/s 8 (1) (g) of the Act.
4. In the course of hearing, the complainant stated that the his RTI
application dated June 14, 2008 was not replied. He therefore submitted his first
appeal on 2.09.2008, in response to which, he was asked to deposit Rs. 4,000/-
for providing the information. Being not satisfied with the response, he submitted
his appeal before the Commission. During the hearing, the details of information
asked for and reply given by the CPIO were discussed.
5. The CPIO stated that the information relating to the resolution of various
Police cases, in respect of different FIRs filed by the respondent, are not readily
available. The compilation of the information from different files would increase
the work burden of the limited staff. For the compilation of information, additional
staff would have to be hired for which they have demanded Rs. 4,000/- from the
If you don’t ask, you don’t get – Mahatma Gandhi
1
appellant. It was also mentioned that the disclosure of information relating to the
Police cases would incite crime, hence the information was not given.
6. The appellant stated that he has merely asked for information relating to
the cases which have been resolved by the Police and the amount of expenditure
incurred on security personnel, which are out sourced.
7. The CPIO, however, stated that due to limited staff it was not possible to
compile the information required by the appellant. Hence, the information could
not be furnished.
Decision:
8. The submissions made by the respondents are contradictory, which reflect
lackadaisical attitude of officials to promote transparency in their functioning and
to provide information in the letter and sprit of the Act. On the one hand, the
respondent has stated that furnishing of information relating to FIRs and Police
cases would incite crime, hence denied u/s 8 (1) (g) of the Act. On the other
hand, it is stated that such information regarding the cases solved by the Police
are not maintained. It is also stated that compilation of such information would
divert the resources of the public authority. A sum of Rs. 4,000/- is therefore
demanded from the appellant.
9. In view of the conflicting statements of the respondent and complete
silence on the RTI application for over 4 months, it is amply clear that the CPIO
has chosen to dis-respect the provisions of the Act on one pretext or the other.
10. Therefore, the RTI application dated June 14, 2008 was replied by the
CPIO on 27/11/2008, after the complainant submitted his first appeal dated
2/09/08. Clearly, the CPIO, Shri P. Das, who had received the application for
information did not reply within the stipulated period of 30 days, for the reasons
stated above. He is held responsible for violation of section 7 (1) of the Act. He
is, therefore, directed to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs. 250/- per day
upto a maximum of Rs. 25,000/-, should not be imposed on him u/s 20 (1) of the
Act. He should submit his explanation to the Commission within 15 working days
from the date of issue of this decision and also appear for a personal hearing on
April 16, 2009 at 3.00 pm, failing which the penalty would be imposed. The
appellant may also be present.
11. He is also directed to provide the information free of cost since more than
30 days have already lapsed since the RTI application was put up by the
appellant. In view of conflicting statements, the grounds for denial of information
are not acceptable. He should also allow the appellant to inspect the records and
files so as to clearly identify and specify the required information, which should
be furnished to him as per the provisions of the Act.
2
12. With these observations, the complaint is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
Name and address of parties: 2
1. Shri Shailendra Kumar Jha, House No. L-307, Post-Sindri-828122,
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
2. Shri P. Das, Central Public Information Officer, The Fertilizer Corporation
of India Ltd., PDIL Bhawan (5th Floor), A-14, Sector-1, NOIDA-201301,
U.P.
All men by nature desire to know – Aristotle
3