Central Information Commission
Vaibhav Singh Bhadana vs India Security Press, Nashik Road on 3 January, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No. CIC/ISPNR/A/2020/668640
In the matter of:
Vaibhav Singh Bhadana
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
India Security Press, NashikRoad - 422101
Maharashtra
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 16/01/2020 CPIO replied on : 14/02/2020 First appeal filed on : 05/03/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 20/03/2020 Second Appeal filed on : 22/04/2020 Date of Hearing : 03/01/2022 Date of Decision : 03/01/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Apoorva Bhati, Representative, present over VC at CIC Respondent: M. Subhash, DGM and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought thefollowing information pertaining to non-judicial stamp papers:
1. From which date Non-Judicial stampPapers containing/ depicting the(1) Name of the State (2) Securitythread (3) Rainbow and Guilloche Pattern and (4) Serial Number, were made mandatory? Provide the copy of the relevant Notification/ Order/Noting/ Section/Rule issued in this regard..
2. If the date (with reference of Para'a' above) on which the aforesaidnon-judicial stamp papers weremade mandatory, different fordifferent denominations of non judicial stamp papers, then provide information as per the dateand denominations.1
3. When wasthe Non-Judicial StampPaper without the security features as mentioned in Para 'a'above, made illegal/void/ not validfor usage. Provide the copy of the relevant Notification/Order/Noting/ Section/Rule.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellantand Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant's representative submitted that she is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. She further pressed for complete information. She further pointed out that only dates were sought and the same by no way breach the security and integrity of the nation.
The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was given vide letter dated 14.02.2020.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 14.02.2020 replied to the applicant that as the information sought is secret & from the security point of view, cannot be provided to any individual person and as per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005 section 8(1) a & e the said information cannot be provided under the Act. He further replied that however, ISP can provide this information only to Govt. investigating agencies and the honourable Court where the document / stamp is under dispute.
Information to these Govt. agencies is given only after scientific examination of the original document / stamp which is received from these Govt. investigating agencies and Honourable Courts. The appellant was not satisfied and filed a first appeal on 05.03.2020. The FAA vide order dated 20.03.2020 upheld the CPIO's reply. The appellant was not satisfied and filed a second appeal in which he submitted that the FAA failed to appreciate that the appellant had sought information in respect of only the 'Dates' from which Non-Judicial Stamp Papers with security features and e-stamping were made mandatory for use. He further argued that such non-judicial stamp papers and e-stamping were already in public domain, in wide circulation and available for purchase and use by anyone. Hence, the 'Dates' from which the said non-judicial stamp 2 papers e-stamping were mandatory for use would not be such information which could be refused under Section 8(1)(a) and Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The CPIO was asked to explain and he failed to explain the applicability of the claimed exemptions.
The Commission finds the argument of the appellant maintainable as the CPIO merely quoted Sec 8(1)(a) and (e) and failed to substantiate the same in his reply. The disclosure of dates can by no means be considered exempted u/s 8(1)(a) and (e) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the copy of relevant notification or order can also be given.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised point-wise reply as discussed during the hearing to the appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order. He can take assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act from the Custodian.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ$भ&मा'णतस)या*पत& त) A.K. Assija(ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3