Central Information Commission
Shri Surender Rawat vs Western Naval Command, Mumbai ... on 16 June, 2009
Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01085-SM dated 19.02.2009
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 16 June 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Surender Rawat, Bangalore Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Western Naval Command, Mumbai (Ministry of Defence) The Appellant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Commander S.K. Mishra, CPIO, was present.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
The Appellant had requested the CPIO in his application dated 19 February 2008 for a number of information regarding the procedure followed in acceptance of resignation by a Sailor in general and in his own case in particular. The CPIO replied on 31 March 2008 and denied the information on the ground that the information sought had no visible relationship to any public interest and, therefore, its disclosure was exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Against this, he filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority in the Integrated Headquarters of MOD (Navy) on 23 April 2008. That Authority wrote to him on 2 May 2008 and advised him to prefer this appeal instead to the Chief of Staff, Headquarter, Western Command. The Appellant has filed the second appeal before the CIC against the denial of information.
2. During the hearing through videoconferencing, the Respondent was present in the Mumbai Studio of the NIC. However, the Appellant was not present. We heard the submissions of the Respondent. We do not agree with the arguments of the CPIO that the information sought in this case was personal in nature and was exempt under any provision of the Right to CIC/WB/A/2008/01085-SM Information (RTI) Act. In fact, the entire information sought was about official records and had to be disclosed. It was grossly wrong on the part of the CPIO to have denied the information in the first place. Besides, he also did not reply in time. On both the counts, he is liable for penalty. However, the Respondent submitted that the application had been received later and, therefore, the reply had been given within the stipulated period. He assured that the CPIO was very sensitive to his responsibility under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and had denied the information under bonafide impression that the information was personal to the information seeker. In view of this, we do not intend to impose any penalty on him.
3. However, we direct him to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order photocopies of the relevant documents sought by him.
4. The appeal is, thus, disposed off.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar CIC/WB/A/2008/01085-SM