Central Information Commission
Jayaram Venkatesan vs National Informatics Centre on 16 February, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/NICHQ/A/2020/678761
In the matter of:
Jayaram Venkatesan
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Office
National Informatics Centre, A-Block,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 07/02/2020 CPIO replied on : 27/02/2020 First appeal filed on : 09/04/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal Filed on : 20/07/2020 Date of Hearing : 16/02/2022 Date of Decision : 16/02/2022 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Swarup Dutta, CPIO, present over intra VC and Shriniwas Raghav, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
- Provide the Bid ID, Bidder name and IP address from which the bid was submitted, in respect of all the bidders, who submitted bid for the below mentioned tenders floated by Coimbatore Corporation.
1. 2018_MAWS_89793_1
2. 2018_MAWS_88625_4
3. 2018_MAWS_88625_2
4. and so on.1
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has provided the false information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the information sought by him is public information and is available with the National Informatics Centre. The contention of the CPIO that the information is not available with him is not correct as the National Informatics Centre has provided similar information about IP address for Chennai Corporation since 2018 for 5 different RTIs filed earlier.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 27.02.2020. He also explained that earlier they used to give the information, however, they do not follow this practice anymore and they have developed a utility so that the user department can themselves generate the reports and provide the same to the applicants. He also submitted that in this particular case, the User Department is Government of Tamil Nadu.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that vide the CPIO's reply and the FAA's order, the appellant was informed that since the user department has access to the report, the concerned user department nodal officer is authorised to generate the report with required details. So, the appellant was asked to approach the e-Procurement Nodal Officer of the concerned department and get the required details. Now that the CPIO has properly explained that they do not have this information as the same is available with the concerned Department of Govt. Of Tamil Nadu, no relief can be given.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submission of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त) 2 Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3