CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000265
Dated, the 31st July, 2009.
Appellant : Shri V.K. Sinha
Respondents : Oriental Insurance Company Limited
This matter was heard on 01.07.2009 pursuant to Commission’s
notice dated 26.05.2009. Appellant was absent when called, while the
respondents were represented by the CPIO, Shri P.K. Jha, DGM.
2. From appellant’s second-appeal, it is unclear as to the basis on
which he wishes to impeach the decisions of the CPIO dated 14.08.2008
and the Appellate Authority dated 21.04.2008 corresponding to his
RTI-application dated 18.07.2008.
3. However, it is seen that the Appellate Authority had noted that
the first-appeal was with reference to points at Sl.Nos.5, 8, 10, 11, 12
and 14 in appellant’s RTI-application.
4. These are reproduced below as raised by the appellant in the
second-appeal petition:-
“5. Is there any out of turn allotment of residential houses in
Delhi, in last 5 Years? If so what were the ground for out
of turn allotment?
8. How many of residential houses for General Manager were
vacant for more than 6 months and General Managers were
occupying lower grade Officer’s accommodation – last 5
years?
10. Is there any regulation / guideline / notification / circular
on non-utilization of the house despite waiting list of
eligible Officers?
11. Is there any system of taking action against the Officials
who may be responsible for loss of revenue to the Company
due to non allotment of Houses, despite waiting list?
12. Any Company’s residential house occupied by any officer
who is no more on the rolls of the Company? If so since
when during last 5 years? What action have been taken by
company to get the house vacated?
AT-31072009-42.doc
Page 1 of 2
14. Are godrej almirah provided to the Chief Managers
occupying Company’s houses at NOIDA & Greater Kailash?”
5. From the above, it is seen that items at Sl.Nos.5, 8 and 12 had
been directed to be disclosed by the Appellate Authority on payment of
costs under Section 7(3) amounting to Rs.2,971/- by the appellant.
6. As regards item 10 and item 11, the answer by Appellate
Authority was that there was no such information held by the public
authority. Item number 14 has been provided by the CPIO as recorded
in Appellate Authority’s order.
7. From the above, it is seen that the issue is limited to disclosure of
information pertaining to items 5, 8 and 12 in appellant’s
RTI-application. The issue therein is whether costs should be charged
to the appellant for disclosure of the above information.
8. I find no justification for any cost to be charged to the appellant.
These items of information are liable to be brought out into the open in
public interest in order that it is clear whether or not the public
authority’s property was in occupation of unauthorized persons, the
vacancy in the houses meant for senior officers and out of turn
allotments. These items of information are keys to decision-making
process in the higher management of the public authority and must be
allowed to be brought out into the open in order to assure the public
that official discretion was not used arbitrarily and that the public
authority was alive to its responsibility to put public property to proper
use.
9. It is accordingly directed that all the information contained in
these items of queries shall be disclosed to the appellant within six
weeks of the receipt of this order.
10. It is further directed that all this information collected now for
the appellant shall be put on the public authority’s website for general
information within six weeks of the receipt of this order.
11. Appeal allowed.
12. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-31072009-42.doc
Page 2 of 2