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/2017/171409/00300
File no.: CIC/PAESO/A/2017/171409
In the matter of:
Dinesh Chandra Pandey
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
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 : 24/07/2017 First appeal filed on : 20/07/2017
First Appellate Authority order : 19/09/2017 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 a copy of Mark-sheets of 10th (High School) and 12th (Intermediate) showing marks obtained in Hindi subject related to Sh. P Kumar, Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Agra.
Grounds for Second Appeal 1 The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that misleading and contradictory replies have been provided to him by the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority. He further submitted that the CPIO in his reply has denied the information on the pretext that it is a third party information. However, the First Appellate Authority in his order has mentioned that since the requisite information is not available in the office record, therefore CPIO is not able to provide the information to the appellant , which gives an impression that the CPIO wanted to provide the same information , if available with him, which has been clearly refused to be disclosed by him vide letter dated 24.07.2017.
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. 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, after due consideration, no relief can be granted to the appellant.
The Commission also expresses its displeasure over the conduct of the CPIO & FAA in providing contradictory replies to the appellant and misleading both the appellant and the Commission by such replies.
File no.: CIC/PAESO/A/2017/171409 2 Decision:
Both the CPIO and the FAA are issued a warning to be careful in future while providing replies to the RTI applications. They should ensure that each and every RTI application is replied to properly under the provisions of the RTI Act. The CPIO is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned FAA for his information.
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