Central Information Commission
Tarooq Ahmed Lolapori vs Dg, Doordarshan on 26 July, 2021
CIC/DGDOR/A/2019/127606
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/DGDOR/A/2019/127606
In the matter of:
Tarooq Ahmed Lolapori ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Prasar Bharati,
India Public Service Broadcaster,
Directorate General: Doordarshan,
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 15.03.2019
CPIO replied on : Not on Record
First Appeal filed on : 28.04.2019
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record
Second Appeal Received on : 11.06.2019
Date of Hearing : 17.06.2021
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Tarooq Ahmed Lolapori participated in the hearing on being
contacted on his telephone.
Respondent: Shri Prem Prakash Shukla, Deputy Director, DG: Doordarshan
participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone.
Page 1 of 6
CIC/DGDOR/A/2019/127606
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 15.03.2019 seeking information on the following five points:
"Kindly provide the following information about the company that has been allotted programme "Kaun Banega Crorepati" for Kashir Channel of Doordarshan:
1. Date of registration of the company.
2. Details of programmes produced by the company between 2015-2017 along with copies of the assignment orders.
3. Total number of airtime hours produced and telecast by the company during 2015- 2017 with telecast certificated from the TV channel that telecast such programmes.
4. Attested copy of the proposal submitted by the producer/ company for production of Kaun Banega Crorepati for DD Kashir.
5. Attested copy of the entire file noting of the proposal.
6. Details of Bank draft received as processing fee along with the proposal. Kindly provide Attested copy of the Bank Draft enclosed with the proposal as processing fee."
Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.04.2019, which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority as per available records.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of non- receipt of information from the Respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, the instant hearing is being scheduled through audio conference after informing both the parties.Page 2 of 6
CIC/DGDOR/A/2019/127606 The Appellant stated that the desired information has not been provided by the Respondent.
The Respondent submitted that the information sought in the instant RTI Application cannot be provided to the Appellant as the same is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. He further submitted that the information pertaining to programme "Kaun Banega Crorepati" has been classified as "SECRET" by Doordarshan.
The Appellant interjected to state that the Respondent is misleading the Commission and alleged that crores of rupees were forged and the Respondent has also made/published fake banners. At the instance of the Commission to elaborate as to how the information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, the Respondent explained that the information sought in the present RTI Application consists of details of other companies. Hence, the information sought has been denied under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and that the Appellant has also been informed vide letter dated 24.04.2019. He further explained that as per the extant Doordarshan guidelines, information sought at point no. 6 of the RTI Application cannot be provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent has invoked Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act en bloc, without application of mind. The Commission further observes that the Respondent (Shri P.K. Subhash, ADG(P) and First Appellate Authority) upon receiving the instant Second Appeal, has informed the Commission vide letter dated 02.07.2019 (received in the Commission on 10.07.2019), wherein they have substantiated the denial of Page 3 of 6 CIC/DGDOR/A/2019/127606 information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The Commission also observes that in the aforesaid letter dated 02.07.2019, the Respondent has averred as under:
"...
5. It is further informed that the information pertaining to programme "Kaun Banega Crorepati" has been classified as "SECRET" by Doordarshan. As per CIC's order dated 08.12.2009 (annexure - F) information relating to "Important Negotiation and Contracts" is eligible for security classification by the concerned Department as per "Manual of Departmental Security Instructions." CIC order implies that information/records classified as "SECRET" fall under ambit of Section 8(1) of RTI Act, 2005, and therefore is exempted from disclosure."
With regard to the Respondent's reliance on the Commission's order dated 08.12.2009, the Commission has perused the relevant order wherein the former Information Commissioner has adjudicated a matter between Shri Venkatesh Nayak v/s. M/o. Home Affairs and that the information sought in the aforesaid matter and the information sought in the present matter has no nexus at all.
Moreover, the Commission passes its judgment on case-to-case basis and it seems that the Respondent public authority, especially Shri P.K. Subhash, ADG(P) and First Appellate Authority in personam, has miserably failed to decipher the difference between question of law and question of fact. Hence, the Bench rejects the contention of the Respondent that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Subsequently, the Bench severely admonishes the Respondent public authority for denying the information to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act en bloc. The Commission strictly warns the Respondent public authority to be careful and mindful in future, while dealing with matters pertaining to the RTI Act. Be that as it may, the Commission deems it fit to direct the present CPIO to provide available, relevant and point-wise information as sought in the instant RTI Application to the Appellant, with a copy marked to the Commission. The CPIO is further directed that he/she shall ensure that any information that falls under the Page 4 of 6 CIC/DGDOR/A/2019/127606 exemption clauses i.e., Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act should be adequately redacted/blackened out. The said direction should be complied with, by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 26.07.2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 5 of 6 CIC/DGDOR/A/2019/127606 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) ADG (P), Prasar Bharati, India Public Service Broadcaster, Directorate General: Doordarshan, Doordarshan Bhawan, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-110001
2. The Central Public Information Officer, Prasar Bharati, India' Public Service Broadcaster, Directorate General: Doordarshan, Doordarshan Bhawan, Copernicus Marg:
New Delhi-110001
3. Shri Tarooq Ahmed Lolapori Page 6 of 6