Central Information Commission
Smtreena Devi vs National Fertilizer Ltd.(Nfl) on 21 August, 2015
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/2015/000705
Appellant : Smt. Reena Devi
W/o. Shri Surendera Pal Singh
H. No. B-310, NFL, Panipat, Haryana
Public Authority : The CPIO
National Fertilizers Limited
Gohana Road, Panipat, Haryana-132106
Date of Hearing : 21.08.2015
Date of Decision : 21.08.2015
Presence:
Appellant : Smt. Reena Devi
CPIO : Shri Sanjeev Arya, Manager & PIO
FACTS:
I. Vide RTI application dated 09.01.2015, the appellant sought information on the 3 issues.
II. CPIO, vide its response dated 06.02.2015, has denied to provided the information u/s 8 (1) (j, e).
III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 07.03.2015, as desired information not provided.
IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide his order dated 03.04.2015, upheld the views of CPIO.
V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 02.07.2015, are contained in the Memorandum of Appeal.
HEARING Appellant as well as respondent 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 09.01.2015, sought information from the respondents on three issues. Respondents, vide their response dated 06.02.2015, allegedly provided the required information to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 07.03.2015 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 03.04.2015, upheld the decision of CPIO. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
......2 -2-
2. During hearing of the appeal, it is submitted by Shri Sanjeev Arya, Manager & PIO, that respondents have, vide his response dated 06.02.2015, denied the required information to the appellant by taking a plea under section 8(1) (j) and 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005. He further relied upon the Hon. Supreme Court's earlier order dated 03.10.2012 bearing no. 27734/2012. The Commission has perused the Hon. Supreme Court's earlier order and feels that it is relevant in the case in hand. Further, learned FAA, vide his order dated 03.04.2015, disposed of the FA by upholding the views of CPIO.
3. The Commission 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 09.01.2015, respondent's response dated 06.02.2015, FAA's order dated 03.04.2015 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) and 8(1) (e) 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 response dated 06.02.2015 and FAA's order dated 03.04.2015 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 (Prakash) Deputy Registrar The CPIO National Fertilizers Limited Gohana Road, Panipat, Haryana-132106 Smt. Reena Devi W/o. Shri Surendera Pal Singh H. No. B-310, NFL, Panipat, Haryana