Central Information Commission
Mr Vinod Sunder R vs Comptroller & Auditor General on 9 June, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.-306, 2nd Floor, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000823/RM
Appellant: Shri Vinod Sunder R, New Delhi
Public Authority: Indian Audit and Accounts Deptt., O/o
The Principal Director of Audit, Scientific
Departments, Bangalore and New Delhi,
Deptt. of Space, Bangalore and
DG(Hqrs), O/o Comptroller and Auditor
General of India, New Delhi.
Date of Hearing: 5.06.2014
Date of Decision: 9.06.2014
Heard today, dated 5.06.2014 through video conferencing.
Appellant is represented by Shri Neeraj Sharma, Advocate.
Public Authority is represented by Shri Kartikaye Mathur, Director o/o Principal Director
of Audit, Scientific Department/CPIO and Shri Amarjit Pal Singh, APIO, New Delhi, and
Shri HR Shetty, CPIO, o/o the Principal Director of Audit, Scientific Department,
Bangalore, Ms Hemlata, alternate CPIO/DoS and Shri Madhusudan, DoS, Bangalore.
FACTS
Vide RTI dt 6.11.12, appellant had sought information on 7 points relating to CAG report on the Hybrid Satellite Digital Multimedia Broadcasting Agreement with Devas Multimedia (P) Ltd.
2. CPIO CAG vide letter dt 9.11.12, transferred the RTI to the Principal Director of Audit, Scientific Department, Deptt of Space, Bangalore, for providing a response. CPIO, Bangalore, vide letter dt 19.11.12, transferred query no.2, 3, 5 and 6 to OSD/CPIO, Deptt of Space, and provided a response in respect of query no.1, 4 and 7.
3. CPIO, DoS vide letter dt 10.12.12, transferred query no. 3 and 5 back to the CAG and provided a response on query no.2 and 6.
4. An appeal was filed on 30.1.13 stating that he is not satisfied with the response.
5. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. Appellant submitted that he had sought very specific information from the CAG relating to a report submitted by them to Parliament on the subject of Hybrid Satellite Digital Multimedia Broadcasting Service Agreement with Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. Instead of providing a response, they wrongly transferred it to the Deptt of Space. It was further contended that information sought by him on all the seven points relate to documents on the basis of which the CAG submitted its report and hence transfer of the RTI u/s 6(3) was uncalled for.
6. In respect of query no.2 of the RTI, representative of the DoS submitted that they have already provided a response vide letter dt 10.12.12 and that as per records the proposal referred to is not available. Appellant drew attention to the fact that on page 6 of the CAG report, a reference is made to the fact that DoS submitted a proposal seeking financial sanction for GSAT-VI.
7. In respect of query no.4, appellant submitted that the response provided by the FAA is not tenable as the CAG report has attained finality and cannot be said to be 'work in progress'.
8. In respect of query no.7, appellant specified that he is only seeking copies of communication between CAG and PMO/DoS relating to Antrix-Devas agreement.
9. Public Authority submitted that the FAA vide order dt 28.2.13 had provided a point wise response to the appellant. A copy is submitted to the Commission and taken on record.
DECISION
10. The basic issue on which the information is being sought relates to disclosure of information which went into the making of CAG's report. This issue has been discussed in detail by a Full Bench of the Commission in their order dated 10.6.2010 (Appeal Nos CIC/AT/2007/00274, CIC/AT/A/2008/00726 and CIC/AT/A/2009/000732.) The relevant para of the decision is extracted below:
"In any case, it is our view that audit related items would not attract Section 8(1)
(c) of the RTI Act except in such special cases where it is manifest that a request of disclosure concerned a proceeding extant before a Committee of Parliament or the State Legislature".
As such, the response provided by the CPIO, o/o Principal Director of Audit, Scientific Department, Bangalore, that information sought for is denied as it was "in progress" is not tenable. The appellant has sought information relating to documents on the basis of which CAG submitted its report. We accordingly direct CPIO, CAG to provide a point wise response to the appellant in the light of the Commission's order dated 10.6.2010 quoted above within 3 weeks from date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rajiv Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner