Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Nitesh Kumar vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 18 November, 2021

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/NAVVS/A/2020/119016

Nitesh Kumar                                            ......अपीलकता /Appellant
                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम




CPIO,
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,
Regional Office, RTI Cell,
Karpuri Thakur Sadan, Kendriya
Karyalay Parisar, Block-A & B,
5th Floor, Ashiyana Digha Road,
Patna-800025                                       .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                   :   17/11/2021
Date of Decision                  :   17/11/2021


INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on          :   05/02/2020
CPIO replied on                   :   02/03/2020
First appeal filed on             :   17/03/2020
First Appellate Authority order   :   11/05/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   07/07/2020



                                        1
 Information sought

:

The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 05.02.2020 seeking information pertaining to a letter No F.No RTI/NVS/PTR/2019/4641 dated 04.10.2019 against his application no. NAVVS/A/2019/60252 relevant to acquired land for Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti at Mouza-Bedouli, Rajaswa Thana 49, Khata No 152 Plot No 1396 Bihta, Patna, Bihar, including inter-alia;

"1. As reply vide F. No RTI/NVS/PTR/2019/4641 dated 04.10.2019 court case is in progress, then to whom permission construction of boundary wall i.e. in progress provide the copy of letter.

2. Is there any tender/work order issue to the construction agency, provide the copy of the work order.

3. Also mentioned is the construction work is following under contract by law & GFR 2017 or not.

4. Provide the Copy of letter issued to the Labour commissioner regarding information of construction work is in progress on the said construction.

5. Provide the attendance register of worker & wages details which are governing under the Labour contract law.

6. In continues application vide NAVVS/A/2019/60252 reply may be given if point 1 is in under law.

The CPIO replied to the appellant on 02.03.2020 stating as follows:-

"Desired information provided and lf not satisfied, then he may visit this office for inspection of documents."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.03.2020. FAA's order dated 11.05.2020 stated as follows:-

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground that no documents have been facilitated to the Appellant at the time of inspection. He further raised his grievance that the land in question as per his knowledge was not lis pendens as informed by the FAA.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through audio-conference. Respondent: Deepak Kumar Modi, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO present through audio-conference.

The Appellant reiterated the contents of his Second Appeal as mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

The CPIO reiterated the contents of FAA's order and submitted that apart from information sought, the Appellant also wants the copy of relevant information pertaining to the concerned third party which cannot be provided to him in view of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. He further submitted that the documents of land as sought for were lis-pendens before the Court of law; therefore these could not be made available to the Appellant at the time of inspection.

Decision:

The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record and after hearing submissions of both the parties is of the considered view that denial of inspection of relevant records pertaining to information sought by the CPIO on the plea of the matter being sub judice without substantiating the same under any relevant exemption clause of Section 8/9 of RTI Act was not appropriate.

In view of the above and considering the prayer of the Appellant, the CPIO is hereby directed to reiterate the offer of inspection of the relevant and available records related to the RTI Application to the Appellant on a mutually decided date & time. The intimation of the date & time of inspection will be provided to the Appellant telephonically and in writing by the CPIO and a copy of the documents, as desired by the Appellant during the inspection will be provided to him free of cost upto 50 pages and beyond this limit, fees may be charged as per Rule 4 of RTI Rules, 2012. During inspection, the CPIO is at the liberty to redact the relevant 3 records of third parties disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.

The aforesaid direction should be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO stipulating the details of the inspection provided and copy of the documents provided thereof.

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 / 4