Central Information Commission
Abhishek Sharma vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 4 November, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/134668
Abhishek Sharma ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO, Ministry of External ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Affairs, RTI Cell, Janpath, New
Delhi-110011.
2. CPIO, Ministry of External
Affairs US (Cadre & CCP), PA-
III & Transport), New Delhi.
3. CPIO, Ministry of External
Affairs, DS(FSP), South Block,
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 01.12.2017 FA : 30.03.2018 SA :31.05.2018
CPIO : 08.12.2017 FAO : 09.04.2018 Hearing : 31.10.2019
Page 1 of 5
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of External Affairs seeking information on twelve points pertaining to promotion of Grade I IFS (B) officers into Senior Scale of IFS, including, inter-alia, (i) Yearwise details about the process involved/undertaken in promotion of Grade I of IFS(B) officers into Senior Scale of IFS, since 2004; (ii) certified copy of the records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, circulars, reports, selection list, UPSC List, DPC list, year of Allocation List etc. concerning promotion of Grade I of IFS (B) officers into Senior Scale of IFS ; (iii) Yearwise details of process involved/undertaken in promotion of Junior Scale of IFS, since 2004 etc.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the respondent has malafidely denied the information sought for. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information sought by him Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Abhishek Sharma, Shri Kuldeep and the respondents Ms. Manusmriti, Under Secretary (Cadre), Shri Subhash Agrawal, RTI Consultant, Shri Mojito Vinito, DS (FSP and Cadre), MEA, New Delhi were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that the respondent has not furnished any information to him, despite the information being available with the respondent. He further stated that the information sought by him was wrongly denied to him on Page 2 of 5 vague grounds by the respondent. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information sought for by him.
5. The respondent submitted that the RTI application of the appellant was transferred by them to the concerned department. The respondent further submitted that the information sought by the appellant pertained to several different files, and the information being scattered and voluminous could not be provided to him. The respondent further stated that the appellant had filed several RTI applications with the respondent, seeking yearwise information from the year 2004 which are very old records. The respondent stated that the appellant was informed that the information sought is voluminous in nature, collating and compiling of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. Hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. Upon query, the respondent admitted that some of the information sought by the appellant can be provided to the appellant subject to the provisions of the RTI Act. The respondent requested the Commission to grant an opportunity to revisit the RTI application to provide information as per the provisions of the RTI Act to the appellant.
6. The appellant stated that he has no objection towards the plea of the respondent to provide him an appropriate reply.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, notes that no proper reply in response to the RTI application was furnished to the appellant by the respondent. The Commission further Page 3 of 5 observes that the information sought by the appellant can be provided by the respondent subject to the provisions of RTI Act. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to revisit the RTI application and provide a revised reply to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 01.11.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Ministry of External Affairs RTI Cell, Room No. 2021, 'A' Wing, Jawaharlal Nehru Bhawan, 23-D, Janpath, New Delhi - 110 011.Page 4 of 5
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Ministry of External Affairs RTI Cell, Room No. 2021, 'A' Wing, Jawaharlal Nehru Bhawan, 23-D, Janpath, New Delhi - 110 011.
3. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Ministry of External Affairs US(Cadre & CCP, PA-III and Transport), Room No. 4086 'A' Wing, Jawaharlal Nehru Bhawan, 23-D, Janpath, New Delhi - 110 011.
4. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Ministry of External Affairs US(Cadre & CCP, PA-III and Transport), Room No. 4086 'A' Wing, Jawaharlal Nehru Bhawan, 23-D, Janpath, New Delhi - 110 011.
5. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Ministry of External Affairs DS(FSP), Room No. 37, South Block, New Delhi
6. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Ministry of External Affairs DS(FSP), Room No. 37, South Block, New Delhi
7. Shri Abhishek Sharma Page 5 of 5