Central Information Commission
Praful Kharas vs Office Of The Salt Commissioner on 23 April, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सचु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी- 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/SALTC/A/2018/155868/03278
File no.:CIC/SALTC/A/2018/155868
In the matter of:
Praful Kharas
...Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
O/o Dy. Salt Commissioner
Exchange Building, 4th Floor, Sir Shivsagar Ramgulam Marg,
Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400 001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 24/05/2018 CPIO replied on : 21/06/2018 First appeal filed on : 02/07/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 31/07/2018 Second Appeal dated : 03/09/2018 Date of Hearing : 22/04/2020 Date of Decision : 22/04/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over phone Respondent: V Anand Kumar, Assistant Civil Engineer & CPIO, heard over phone.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the inspection of the files relating to licence and transfer of licence maintained by the Salt Department for the following Salt works:
1. St. Antone Salt Works
2. Mhaska Salt Works 1 Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he was not shown the relevant file pertaining to licence and transfer of licence for the period 1900 to 1960 during his inspection. Instead some irrelevant files were shown to him and the documents were available in modi scripts and that too for the period 1845 to 1855. He stated that he wanted some hand- written notes of the file mentioned above.
The CPIO submitted that whatever record was available with them, the same was shown to the appellant during his inspection. He further submitted that he is ready to provide one more opportunity to the appellant to inspect the documents that are available with them if he is still interested and provide copies of the relevant pages as required.
Observations:
Having head the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the appellant is not satisfied with the files shown to him during his visit to the office. During the hearing, he raised the issue of hand written notes and submitted that he is interested to get a copy of those notes. At this point, the CPIO submitted that the available information was already shown to the appellant, however, if he is still aggrieved, he can be given one more opportunity to inspect the relevant files available with them. Therefore, he is directed to provide an opportunity for inspection of the relevant records to the appellant. The appellant submitted that he is willing to inspect the records if an opportunity is given to him.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to offer inspection of the relevant available records to the appellant at a mutually convenient date and time, within 20 days after the lockdown is lifted. The appellant is directed to avail of the said offer within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the letter of inspection from the respondent authority, failing which no further opportunity will be provided to him.The CPIO is also directed to provide the 2 first twenty pages free of cost to the appellant after which relevant photocopying charges can be demanded.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआयक् ु त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) A.K. Assija(ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दिन ंक/ Date 3