Central Information Commission
Dinesh Chandra Pandey vs Petroleum And Explosives Safety ... on 27 March, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका, नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/PAESO/A/2017/171595/00301
File no.: CIC/PAESO/A/2017/171595
In the matter of:
Dinesh Chandra Pandey
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Controller of Explosives
Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization,
A Block, CGO Complex, Seminary hills
Nagpur - 440 006
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 19/06/2017 CPIO replied on : 03/07/2017 First appeal filed on : 20/07/2017
First Appellate Authority order : 08/09/2017 Second Appeal dated : 10/10/2017 Date of Hearing : 27/03/2019 Date of Decision : 27/03/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present
Respondent: J Sarkar, Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives & CPIO. Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information related to Sh. P K Kumar, Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Agra:
1. During Govt. service records related to his imprisonment in jail with full details where he was imprisoned.1
2. His conduct/ behaviour in jail as per jail records.
3. During service period his records related to suspension order from service and revocation of suspension order with copies of note sheets.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply received from the CPIO. He further submitted that the order of the FAA is also not proper as a clubbed order has been passed by the FAA with regard to his different first appeals.
The CPIO submitted that since the sought for information pertained to a third party, hence the proper procedure as envisaged under Section 11 of the RTI Act was followed and a notice was sent to the third party seeking his NOC regarding sharing of the information pertaining to him. A reply to that effect was also provided to the appellant on 03.07.2017. He further submitted that since the concerned third party had categorically refused to allow his information to be shared by letter dated 10.07.2017, after due consideration, no information was disclosed to the appellant. A reply to that effect was also provided to the appellant on 24.07.2017.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and considering the oral submissions of both the parties, it is noted that since the sought for information clearly pertained to a third party namely Shri P Kumar, the proper procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act has been followed by the respondent authority and since the third party had categorically objected to allow his information to be shared, on due consideration no relief can be granted to the appellant.
It is also pertinent to mention here that there is no infirmity in the order of the FAA as it has been clearly mentioned that all the four applications have been replied separately and hence no question of clubbing arises.2
File no.: CIC/PAESO/A/2017/171595 Decision:
Based on above observation, no further intervention is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3