CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00130
Dated, the 07th July, 2008.
Appellant : Shri Vasu Venkataramani
Respondents : Ennore Port Trust
This matter came up for hearing on 01.07.2008 pursuant to Commission’s
hearing notice dated 06.05.2008. Appellant was present in person, while the
respondents were represented by Shri M.Gunasekaran.
2. Upon hearing the parties, it is decided that the respondents will furnish to
the appellant, within 6 weeks from the date of the receipt of this order, all
information pertaining to queries at Sl.Nos.4, 5, 12 and 13 of the RTI-application
of the appellant, dated 22.12.2006. While disclosing information in regard to
items 4 and 5, respondents may apply the severability provisions of Section 10(1)
to withhold information which could expose the names of persons who awarded
the grades and the marks to the interviewees.
3. As regards query at Sl.No.1, the appellant stated that he would be happy
to receive only the Regulations and the Recruitment Rules for the post of General
Managers, Marine Service.
4. Respondents agreed to provide this to the appellant. They may do so
within 2 weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.
5. The appeal is disposed of with these directions.
Complaint:
6. The appellant has also filed a complaint against the CPIO & DGM
(Finance), Ennore Port Trust for not furnishing him any reply to his
RTI-application dated 22.12.2006, which was finally replied to only after he filed
his first-appeal dated 05.03.2007 before the AA.
7. The CPIO explained during the hearing that the error in not supplying
information to the appellant occurred entirely inadvertently. Between July and
December 2006, there was a shift in his office from one building to another
which, combined with irregular placement of officers, led to this RTI-application
of the appellant being overlooked. It was not done willfully, intentionally or
without reasonable cause. He regretted the error.
Page 1 of 2
8. The Commission has no reason to believe that the delay which occurred in
this matter was a wanton delay, which would invite the penalty under
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The possibility of overlooking even time-bound
matters, viz. the RTI-application, during shifting of office is not an uncommon
occurrence. Considering the fact that CPIO had promptly delivered the
information as soon as he came to know about the appellant’s RTI-petition from
the notice from the AA, it serves as evidence enough that it was not on his mind
to intentionally withhold the requested information.
9. Commission does not wish to draw any harsh conclusion given the
circumstances of the matter. As such, there shall be no penalty proceeding in this
case. Complaint closed.
10. 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