Central Information Commission
Mr.Ashok Kumar Baretha vs Department Of Revenue on 6 July, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
D- Wing, 2nd Floor,
August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000544
PARTIES TO THE CASE:
Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Baretha
Respondent : Ministry of Finance, Central Bureau of Narcotics,
Gwalior, M.P.
Date of decision : 6.7.2011
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
1. The Appellant vide his RTI Application dated 03/11/2010 had requested exhaustive and specific information in querries (a) to (m) of his RTI Application from the CPIO, O/o the Narcotics Commissioner, Gwalior. The information sought through the specific Questions enlisted in the Appellant's RTI application is not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity but having perused the RTI Application carefully, the Commission understands that it broadly relates to the details of DPC meetings held between 1991 to 1997 for considering cases of UDC/ Steno (OG) for promotion to the post of Inspector, the details of the review DPC constituted during 1998-99 as well as 2002-03 inter alia.
2. The CPIO disposed of the application vide his Order dated 02/12/2010 with respect to all the Questions asked by the Appellant through his RTI Application. The CPIO's reply clearly shows that no information has been denied to the Appellant; however, the information being exhaustive and voluminous, the CPIO has requested the Appellant to personally inspect the concerned records relevant to the information sought by him. The CPIO has further stated that the specific format in which the information has been sought by the Appellant cannot be created afresh by the Respondent in the manner as desired by the Appellant.
3. Unhappy and aggrieved with the CPIO's Order, the Appellant preferred first appeal before the Deputy Narcotics Commissioner (P & V) & FAA, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Gwalior on 07/12/2010. The FAA vide its Order dated 07/01/2011 upheld the Order passed by the CPIO.
4. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the Appellant has preferred second appeal before this Commission. The hearing before the Commission was held on 27/06/2011 where the both the parties were present in person before the Commission.
DECISION NOTICE:
5. The Commission has have carefully perused through the submissions made and considered the arguments advanced by both the parties.
6. The Appellant has not raised any grievance as per his second appeal before the Commission in relation to Question Nos. (b), (e), (g), (h), (i), (j), (l) and (m) of his RTI Application. The Commission has doubt after having heard both the parties that the Respondent is more than ready and willing to furnish the information as desired by the Appellant. It is simply the case of the Respondent that the quantum of the information sought by the Appellant being exhaustive and voluminous, the Appellant may be pleased to personally visit the office of the respondent and inspect the concerned records relevant to his RTI application, to his own satisfaction.
7. The Respondent is also more than willing to appoint and provide 3 (three) of its officers to assist the appellant during the inspection process, given the voluminous nature of information. The written submissions placed on record by the respondent are indicative of the fact that nothing has been done by the Respondent to refuse the disclosure of the desired information under the RTI Act.
8. It is further the case of the Respondent that Appellant is seeking fresh information to be created as per the manner and fashion in which he so desires in a format prescribed by him. The Appellant must understand that the RTI Act calls for the disclosure of information as held by the Public Authority and does not warrant creation of information as per the manner / format / particular arrangement as desired through any RTI Application. As long as the Respondent is ready and willing to provide the information in whatever format it is maintained it in its official records, the Appellant cannot complain.
9. Notably, both the parties present agree that the information, as maintained in the official records, will be disclosed to the Appellant. The appellant may, therefore, visit the office of the CPIO or the Respondent public authority between 1000 hours to 1700 hours within 45 days of having received this Order.
10. In line with the submission on behalf of the Respondent during the hearing before us and the initiative shown by the Respondent in providing the information to the Appellant under the RTI Act, we also direct the CPIO to appoint 2 to 3 (three) officers of the Respondent who shall help and assist the Appellant, if he so desires, during such inspection of records.
11. The Appellant be provided with photocopies of the records so inspected and which pertain to the information sought by him through his present RTI Application. In such case, the standard cost as per the RTI Act for photocopying be charged from the Appellant.
12. The Appeal is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/-
( Sushma Singh ) Information Commissioner July 6, 2011 Authenticated True Copies ( K.K. Sharma ) OSD & Deputy Director Name of parties :
1. PIO & Asst. Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics, 19 The Mall, Morar, Gwalior (M.P).
2. Appellate Authority & Dy. Narcotics Commissioner (P&V), Central Bureau of Narcotics, 19 The Mall, Morar, Gwalior (M.P).
3. Shri A.K. Baretha, Inspector, O/o Chief Controller, Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Facatoies, Saraswati House, 5th Floor, 27 Nehru Place, New Delhi-19.