Central Information Commission
Sitaram Mandal vs Damodar Valley Corporation on 28 November, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DVCOR/A/2018/131584
Sitaram Mandal ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Damodar Valley ...प्रनतवािीगण
Corporation, Kolkata, West /Respondents
Bengal
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 16.11.2017 FA : 12.01.2018 SA : 17.05.2018
CPIO : no reply FAO : no order Hearing: 25.11.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata, West Bengal seeking information/documents on four points pertaining to his superannuation and deferrment of the date of his next increment from 01.06.1996 to 01.01.1997, including, inter-alia, (i) a copy of his option form, (ii) pay fixation statement, (iii) Calculation sheet for pay fixation.
Page 1 of 42. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that the respondent has neither furnished any information to the RTI application nor was his first appeal adjudicated. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide information sought for and to initiate penal action against the CPIO.
Hearing:
3. The appellant was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Anshuman Mandal, JS, CPIO, Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata, West Bengal attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The respondent have filed their written submissions dated 18.11.2019 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that the information sought for by the appellant was provided to him by the respondent vide letter dated 20.12.2017. The information sought vide point no. 4 of the RTI Application was subject to interpretation, as there are several rules, and the appellant did not cite any specific rule, a copy of which could be provided to him. Hence, the appellant was informed that the information sought vide point no. 4 does not fall within the purview of the Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In response to a query, the respondent admitted that the rules on the basis of which the appellant's increment was deferred would have been cited in the relevant file and hence, details of the aforesaid rules can be provided to the appellant.
Page 2 of 4Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that information sought vide point no. 4 of the RTI application was incorrectly denied on the grounds that the information sought for is not specific and hence does not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to revisit point no. 4 of the RTI application and provide a revised reply alongwith all relevant documents to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्यसूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 26.11.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S.Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Towers, VIP Road, Kolkata, West Bengal-700054.
2. The First Appellant Authority (FAA) Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Towers, VIP Road, Kolkata, West Bengal-700054.
3. Shri Sitaram Mandal Page 4 of 4