Central Information Commission
Mrbharat Lal vs Ministry Of Tourism on 4 July, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/KY/A/2016/000766
Appellant : Shri Bharat Lal
F-436, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi-110062
Public Authority : The CPIO
M/o Tourism
The Ashok, Diplomatic Enclave, 50B
Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021
Date of Hearing : 04.07.2016
Date of Decision : 04.07.2016
Presence:
Appellant : Shri Bharat Lal
CPIO : Dr. Richa Mishra, DGM and Shri Amit Wadehir, Manager (HR)
FACTS:
I. Vide RTI application dated 09.09.2015, the appellant sought information on 4 issues.
II. CPIO, vide its response dated 16.10.2015 & 17.11.2015, has provided the information to the Appellant on point no 1 and other are denied to u/s 8 (1) (j). III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 16.11.2015, as desired information not provided.
IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide its order dated 02.12.2015, upheld the decision of CPIO.
V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 21.04.2015, are contained in the Memorandum of Second Appeal.
HEARING Appellant as well as respondents appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 09.09.2015, sought information from the respondents on four issues. Respondents, vide their response dated 16.10.2015 & 17.11.2015, allegedly provided the required information to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 16.11.2015 Page 1 of 2 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 02.12.2015, upheld the decision of CPIO. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the CPIO, vide his response dated 16.10.2015, has provided the required information, against issue no. 1, to the appellant. However, against remaining issues, CPIO, vide his subsequent response dated 17.11.2015, denied the required information to the appellant by taking a plea under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005. Further, learned FAA, vide his order dated 02.12.2015, disposed of the FA by upholding the views of CPIO.
3. The Commissioner heard the submissions made by appellant as well as respondents at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 09.09.2015, respondent's response dated 16.10.2015 & 17.11.2015, FAA's order dated 02.12.2015, other material made available on record and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
4. In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commission is of the considered view that the plea taken by CPIO under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005 appears to be justified in the eyes of Law. As such, there is no legal infirmity either in CPIO's response or FAA's order. Therefore, the CPIO's responses dated 16.10.2015 & 17.11.2015 and FAA's order dated 02.12.2015 are hereby upheld being legally tenable. In view of this, the appellant's second appeal deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, it is dismissed.
The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Krishan Avtar Talwar) Deputy Secretary The CPIO M/o Tourism The Ashok, Diplomatic Enclave, 50B Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021 Shri Bharat Lal F-436, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi-110062