Central Information Commission
Mr.Chandan Kumar vs Comptroller And Auditor General on 30 October, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000392
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 30 October 2012
Date of decision : 30 October 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Chandan Kumar,
Kulti College Road, Post Kulti,
Distt - Burdwan, Pin - 713 343.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, O/o. the Comptroller & Auditor
General of India, 9, Deen Dayal
Upadhyaya Marg,
New Delhi - 110 124.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, no one was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant was present in the Burdwan studio of the NIC. The Respondent had informed the CIC in writing that the CPIO would not be able to appear for the hearing since he would be on official tour and that the case be adjourned. Since we received the request for postponement only yesterday, we could not adjourn the case. In any case, it is not the practice of the CIC ordinarily to adjourn cases on such grounds.
3. The Appellant had sought a number of information regarding the compliance of section 4(1) (b) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act as also about the transfer of officials in the field offices of the CAG in the last three years. It appears that his RTI application had been transferred to the office of CIC/SM/A/2012/000392 the Principal AG, Jharkhand which had returned it back to the office of the CAG. The CPIO of the office of the CAG finally wrote to the Appellant on 2 January 2012 with the observation that the desired information had already been provided to him earlier.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant complained that his RTI application had been wrongly transferred to a field office when the information was available in the office of the CAG. There is much merit in this objection. The information had been sought from the office of the CAG and there was no possible reason why the RTI application was transferred to a field office, in the first place. The information sought concerns the implementation of section 4(1)
(b) by the CAG. The Appellant submitted that he had visited the website of the CAG many times but could never find any link regarding the consolidated disclosure of information under this particular provision. Similarly, he pointed out that in the CAG website, there was no specific link where one could find out all the rules, regulations, circulars, guidelines and instructions issued by the CAG, from time to time. This, incidentally, is a clear requirement under Section 4(1)(b).
5. After carefully considering the submissions of the Appellant, we are of the view that the CPIO should inform the Appellant about the exact links in the CAG website where the desired information could be found out. We would also like him to provide a list of all the transfers ordered during the last three years including the copies of the transfer orders unless of course these transfer orders run into hundreds of pages, in which case, the consolidated list of transfers should be provided. We direct the CPIO to carry out the above orders within 10 working days of receiving this order. The entire information should be CIC/SM/A/2012/000392 provided free of charge.
6. We would also like the CPIO to be careful in future and not transfer RTI applications without first checking up the facts.
7. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/000392