CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Adjunct to Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01015 dated 20.10.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Vinesh Singh G. Rore
Respondent - Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
FACT
As part of our decision of 19.3.2009 on this appeal, we had directed as
follows:
"Question 3 (c):
In this case the plea taken by respondents in the written
submissions of learned counsel Shri Naresh Kaushik is that the
disclosure does not justify "larger public interest". However,
respondents have been unable to cite the clause u/s 8 (1) (j) in
which the larger public interest has been cited as a permissible
ground for refusing information, whereas in most sub sections of 8
(1) which allows exemption from disclosure of information, public
interest is repeatedly cited as a reason for disclosing information
otherwise considered exempt except in the case of information
falling u/s 8 (1) sub section (j), but even in that case only if it has
"no relationship" to any public interest, which in this case is
nobody's argument. In the hearing Ld. Counsel for respondents Ms.
Kalkal Chaudhary submitted that it is difficult to segregate the
information sought by appellant Shri Rore from other noting, which
addresses other issues in this regard. In this context CPIO Shri
Prachish Khanna, Dy. Secretary, UPSC will present the file noting
to us on 26-3-2009 at 10.00 A.M. on the basis of which we will
decide as to whether and if found possible, what part of file noting
can be segregated and provided to the appellant Shri Rore under
the principle of severability enshrined in Section 10 sub-section (1)
of the RTI Act, 2005."
.
Accordingly the following appeared before us together with the requisite files
on 26.3.2009:
RESPONDENTS
Shri Prachish Khanna Dy. Secy. & CPIO
Shri S. K. Chadha, S.O.
Shri K. C. Sharma, Asstt.
Ms. Amita Kalkal Chaudhary, Advocate for Sh. Naresh Kaushik
1
In this context, we examined noting on UPSC file No. 7/6/2002-EIII. The
File No. is OA No. 276/2002 and concerns the case before CAT of Shri Vinesh
Singh Rore, Appellant in the present case. We find from the inspection of noting
on file that the plea taken by Counsel for respondents in the hearing of the
appeal Ms. Kalkal Chaudhary, that “the noting contains information on other
matters also addressed in the file, and it will not be possible to segregate the
information sought by appellant Shri Rore”, is incorrect since this file concerns
only the application of Shri Rore regarding the issue of home state and does not
address any other matter. CPIO Shri Prachish Khanna, D.S. submitted that the
information contained on pages 5, 6 & 12 was information held by the
Confidential Branch of the UPSC and, therefore, not open to disclosure. These
three pages were reexamined.
DECISION NOTICE.
Having examined the records and heard the respondents, we find nothing in
pages 3 to 16 of the note-sheet of File No. 7/6/2002-EIII to be exempt from
disclosure under any of the provisions of the sec. 8(1). In fact the noting in
responding to the representation of appellant Shri Rore deals with the question of
treatment of home state of father and son and principles developed / rules made
or not made in this regard. The noting is in fact, record of a very public activity of
direct concern to public interest. We, therefore, direct that file noting from the
above file covering pp 3 to 16 be provided to appellant Shri Vinesh Singh
G. Rore by CPIO Shri Prachish Khanna within ten working days of the date
of issue of this Decision Notice
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
26.3.2009
2
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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
26-3-2009
3