CENTRAL INFORAMTION COMMISSION
*****
F.No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01114-SM
Dated the 29th October, 2008.
Appellant: Shri V.K. Mehra
Respondent: Naval Headquarters, Ministry of Defence
Shri V.K. Mehra, the Appellant personally present along with Shri Ashok
Kumar
From the Respondents side the following were present:-
1. Commodore A. Ghosal, PDPS
2. Commodore H. Gupta, JAG (N)
3. Commodore-At-Arms S.K. Gupta, PIO (N)
4. Commodore A. Arya, DOH
At the beginning of the hearing, the Appellant submitted that he had asked
for certain information pertaining to the Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) of
a particular equipment called Tri-sponder being used by the Navy and that most
of the information was denied to him by invoking Section 8 of the RTI Act. He
argued that since public funds were involved in the AMC, information sought
could not be withheld by merely invoking some provisions of Section 8. He was
also not satisfied with the decision of the Appellate Authority who rejected his
appeal by endorsing the views of the CPIO.
2. The respondents defended their decision by arguing that the particular
equipment about which the information had been sought was a part of a naval
ship and had implications from strategic and security angle and, therefore, could
not be disclosed as provided under Section 8(1) (a) and (d) of the RTI Act.
3. On reading out the specific items of information sought by the Appellant,
the respondents agreed that some of the information sought could have been
given without compromising the security of the Indian Navy or the naval ship.
They also agreed that more specific reasons for invoking Section 8(1)(a) and (d)
should have been mentioned in the reply of the CPIO or the decision of the First
Appellate Authority for withholding information on some of the items.
DECISION
4. After hearing the arguments of both the sides and considering the nature
of information sought, we are of the view that the public authority should provide
the information on the following items:-
(i) Number of Tri-sponders with their cost and date of purchase.
(ii) How many of them are currently in use. (iii) Value of AMC. (iv) Future plans for continuing the AMC.
5. It was made clear to the Appellant that information regarding the details
of AMC could not be given as the information sought was not specific. With
regard to the rest of the information, excluding those stated above, the public
authority should clearly state how the disclosure of such information would
adversely affect the security, etc. of the state and, therefore, would be covered
under the exemption from disclosure provisions of Section 8(a) and (d) of the
RTI Act.
6. The case is remanded back to the First Appellate Authority for ensuring
compliance of our decision within 20 working days.
7. The appeal is thus disposed off. Copies of this order be given free of cost
to the parties.
Sd/-
(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.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar