Central Information Commission
Amol Madhukar Vispute vs Ordnance Factory Board on 2 August, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No. : CIC/OFBKO/A/2017/145953/SD
Amol Madhukar Vispute ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Metal & Steel Factory
Ichapur- Nawabganj, Distt- 24 Parganas (North)
Pin-743144
CPIO,
Ordnance Factory Chanda
Distt-Chandrapur-442501 (MS)
CPIO,
Ordnance Equipment Factory
Hazratpur, Firozabad-283103 ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
RTI application filed on : 14/03/2017
CPIO replied on : 19/04/2017
First appeal filed on : 29/04/2017
First Appellate Authority order : 16/06/2017
Second Appeal dated : Dated Nil diarised on 05.07.2017
Date of Hearing : 01/08/2018
Date of Decision : 01/08/2018
Information sought:
The Appellant sought copy of report sent by Respondent office in response to OFB letter dated 28.02.2017 seeking marks of LDCE and DR Chargeman (Tech & Non- 1 Tech) from all Ordnance Factories for redressal of grievance of Chargeman Seniority Lists published on 07.02.2017.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent (1): P.K. Pattnayak, JGM & CPIO, Metal & Steel Factory, Ichapur present through VC.
Respondent (2): A.N. Satpathy, JGM & APIO, Ordnance Factory , Chanda present through VC.
Respondent (3): Ravi Mishra, DGM & PIO, Ordnance Equipment Factory, Hazratpur, Firozabad present through VC.
Appellant stated that he has been provided with information on similar RTI Application from Respondent(s) 2 & 3, yet, Respondent No.1 has denied this information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Respondent (1) submitted that appropriate reply denying the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has been provided to the Appellant as the report under reference contains marks of the third parties who appeared in the LDCE/DR Exam.
Decision Commission observes from the perusal of facts that there is no scope of intervention in the CPIO reply as marks of third parties is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The contention of the Appellant that other public authorities have provided the information does not cast an obligation on Respondent No.1 to provide the same without adhering to the provisions of RTI Act.2
File No. : CIC/OFBKO/A/2017/145953/SD The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा ) Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) Haro Prasad Sen Dy. Registrar 011-26106140 / [email protected] हारो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date Amol Madhukar Vispute 3