Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/00744-SM dated 14.11.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 25.02.2009
Appellant : Shri Shiv Shankar Singh
Respondent : Union Bank of India
The Appellant along with Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, is present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Vipin Chandra, Senior Manager (Law), is
present.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had requested the CPIO in his letter dated 14 November 2007 for a
number of information in respect of the auction of the property of the Priyanka Paper Cone
Industries. In reply, the CPIO provided him with some information, not item wise but in a general
way. Not satisfied, he filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 18 December 2007. It
is not clear if the first Appellate Authority heard the Appeal and passed any orders at all. The
Appellant as I approached us in second appeal.
3. During the hearing, both the sides were present. After hearing the submissions of both
the parties and after carefully examining the information provided by the CPIO, we find that there
are many gaps in the information provided. The contention of the CPIO that he was not required
to provide information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act is itself not correct and based on
an inadequate application of the provisions of the law. Therefore, in addition to whatever
information the CPIO has already provided, we now direct him to provide the following information
within 10 working days from the receipt of this order.
(i) Date, time, and the venue where the auction of the property under reference took place.
(ii) A copy of the corrigendum published in the newspapers regarding the amendment in the
bid amount for the auction of the property of the said industry. In case, no such
advertisement was published in any newspaper, the CPIO must clearly state so in his
reply.
4. We note that several of the items of information sought by the Appellant are in the nature
of seeking an explanation from the CPIO rather than asking for any particular information within
the meaning of the term as defined in the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Therefore, the CPIO was
right in not providing any information in response to those queries.
5. With the above direction, we dispose off this appeal.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar