CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00086
Dated, the 08th July, 2008.
Appellant : Shri Uday Prabhu
Respondents : Directorate General of Shipping
This second-appeal came up for hearing on 24.06.2008 following the
Commission’s hearing notice dated 28.04.2008. Appellant was absent, while the
respondents by Shri P.Kumaran, Deputy Director General of Shipping.
2. The respondents pointed out that although the original petition of the
appellant for information was filed before the CPIO on 03.07.2007, he paid the
application-fee only on 06.09.2007 through postal order dated 18.08.2007.
CPIO furnished him with a reply on 11.09.2007.
3. The appellant’s RTI-application dated 03.07.2007 read as follows:-
“I … wish to have copies of the Application made by M/s SAVINO DEL
BENE FREIGHT FORWARDERS (INDIA) PVT LTD, Mumbai for
issuance of FMC-US Approved BLs as agents of USA based NVOCC’s
from India / MTO Approval or Approvals sought under the Indian Bills of
Lading & Merchant shipping Acts for NVOCC, since 1997-98 & All
subsequent correspondence till date of issuance of the same.
In view of the above, would like to have copies of the Basic Application,
BL issuance approval / Compliance with the MTO Rules & Regulations &
its Approval, copy of Insurance Policies & below mentioned with your
comments on the factual position of the shipping Policy then & Current
policy for release of Bill of Ladings by NVOCCs now in INDIA.
A} Basic Application for issuance of BL, from India for overseas FMC
agents / MTO Approval with all attachments made since 1997-98.
B} Copies of the MTO Approval or under The Merchant Shipping Act to
issue BLs & conditions if any attached & compliance report.
C} Your opinion / advice on their compliance with the above regulations
with All subsequent correspondences / documents for approvals submitted
& approved till date.”
Page 1 of 2
4. CPIO replied to him that the third-party, in respect of whom he was
seeking information, was not registered with the public authority, viz. Directorate
General of Shipping and hence no information could be provided, as no such
information was held by the public authority. As regards the Rules governing
registration as MTO, applicant was directed to the website of the department for
the information he was looking for.
5. Appellant in his second-appeal has stated that incomplete and misleading
information has been provided to him and certain ‘opinion’ and ‘advice’
requested through RTI-application at item ‘C’ was never furnished.
6. On perusal of the documents furnished, it is noted that the appellant has
been seeking the comments, explanations, opinions and advices of the
respondents about certain concerns he seems to have. Therefore, he asked
questions like “Whether Freight forwarders issuing House BL in this fashion are
required to register for compliance of our Countries-Merchant Shipping
Act…..?”, “Can they circumvent DG Shipping, RBI, Indian Police Authorities,
…..intentionally registered in USA and other destinations for misappropriation
of goods?” and so on.
7. It is found that the information which he is seeking is full of
preconceptions, conjectures and hypotheses and was not about real or identifiable
information. Respondents are not required under the provisions of the RTI Act
to respond to such queries. The appellant, contrary to his belief, is not entitled to
use the respondents as his informal consultants in interpreting rules, laws and
instructions in any given matter for appellant’s own convenience.
8. In view of the above, the appeal cannot succeed. Rejected.
9. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by –
Sd/-
( D.C. SINGH )
Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar
Page 2 of 2