Central Information Commission
Vinod Kumar Gupta vs Hindustan Salts Ltd. on 14 February, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/HSALD/A/2020/140434
Vinod Kumar Gupta ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Hindustan Salt Ltd.,
Subsidiary-Sambhar Salts
Limited, RTI Cell, G-229, Sita
Pura Industrial Area, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302022 ..... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25/01/2022
Date of Decision : 11/02/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20/08/2020
CPIO replied on : 08/10/2020
First appeal filed on : 23/09/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 15/12/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.08.2020 seeking the following information:2
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.09.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 08.10.2020 with respect to the points raised in the FA of 23.09.2020 stating as follows:-
1. Information is provided by the PIO to the applicant in a which he is not under any obligation to provide copies of internal correspondences made in the matter.
2. There are 5 employees in regular and contractual rolls in Mandi Unit from the level of Jr. Manager to General Manager. Of the above 3 are authorised by DGMS to work in the mine. 3 employees are getting mine allowance. Mines allowance is paid@; 15% of basic pay
3. As per section 8 of The Right to Information Act, 2005 owing to commercial confidence, trade secrets etc., information is not to be provided.
4. There is no provision of answering to the queries/grievances of an applicant under the RTI Act. 5. There is no provision of answering to the queries/grievances of an applicant under the RTI Act.
6. As per section 8 of The Right to Information Act, 2005 owing to commercial confidence, trade secrets etc., information is not to be provided.3
7. There is no provision of answering to the queries/grievances of an applicant under the RTI Act.
8. There is no provision of answering to the queries/grievances of an applicant under the RTI Act. Company is following extant government guidelines in the matter.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Shumona Majumdar, Company Secretary/ DGM P&A) & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he has not received any reply specific to the instant RTI Application rather the reply has been provided to the points referred to in his earlier RTI Application and First Appeal. He further expressed his angst over the submissions tendered by the CPIO and alleged that the CPIO has been routinely failing to provide the information specific to the RTI Applications.
The CPIO referred to the reply provided to the Appellant on 08.10.2020 while agreeing that there appears to be some anomaly in the number of queries answered versus the number of queries mentioned in the instant RTI Application. She further submitted that nonetheless, the reply of 08.10.2020 is applicable even otherwise as copy of internal correspondences cannot be disclosed.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought for in the RTI Application does not largely conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act except on point no.1 as the Appellant has raised speculative queries seeking clarifications and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO.
However, the Commission takes exception to the fact that no specific reply was provided by the CPIO to the RTI Application under reference, rather a reply was provided to the points raised in the First Appeal in combination with a certain earlier RTI Application of the Appellant which has caused avoidable confusion in 4 the matter. The CPIO is hereby directed to send her written explanation to this effect stating the reasons for the omission to reply to the instant RTI Application. The said written explanation of the CPIO should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Further, as a matter of limited relief, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the available information as sought for at point no.1 of the instant RTI Application to the Appellant including the copy of note sheets/correspondences related to the action taken on the letter under reference. The apprehension of the CPIO in parting with the internal correspondences made on the Appellant's averred letter is unfounded particularly in the absence of any exemption of Section 8 of the RTI Act pleaded by the CPIO. Nonetheless, the CPIO is at liberty to redact the names and identifying particulars of any third party or such information which is deemed personal to a third party from the relevant records. In other words, the CPIO shall provide the available information after severing the exempted categories of the information as prescribed under Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, if any, figuring in the relevant records.
The information as directed above shall be provided to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5