Central Information Commission
Akshay Deshmane vs National Building Construction ... on 22 August, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NBCCL/A/2023/622293
Akshay Deshmane .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED RTI
DIVISION, Corporate Office,
NBCC Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi -110003 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.08.2024
Date of Decision : 21.08.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.11.2022
CPIO replied on : 21.11.2022
First appeal filed on : 22.12.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.05.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.11.2022 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 4
"I am filing this application under section 6 read with section 2J of the RTI Act. Kindly permit inspection of the following files:
1) file number 63(251)/15-Vig/Chapman Taylor/EKN/597 along with its part files and/or volumes, if any.
2) file number 63(251)/15-Vig/Chapman Taylor/EKN/821 along with its part files and/or volumes, if any.
After inspecting the files, I will be able to inform the Learned CPIO about the specific pages/documents which I want photocopied from them.
note: through my online RTI application bearing registration number MOURB/R/E/22/02241 and dated 12 October 2022, I filed a request for inspection of a related file in the possession of the ministry of housing and urban affairs. However, my request for inspection of the file was denied with the claim that certain actions on part of another public authority were pending. The present application is being filed with the hope that those pending actions have reached a state of finality. Further, even if they have not reached a stage of finality, it is hoped that the Learned CPIO will respect the mandate imposed on him by section 10 of the RTI Act to disclose partial information in case a section of information involves protected interest of any kind.
Below items are for your kind information and consideration:
a) As per section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005, in case part of the requested information is held by another public authority, I request the PIO to transfer the application or part of it within FIVE days and immediately inform me about such transfer.
b) As per section 7(3) of the RTI Act 2005, in case there is any further fee required to provide the requested information, I request the PIO to inform me of the additional fee amount along with the calculations made to arrive at the amount.
c) As per section 7(8)(iii) and 7(3)(ii) of the RTI Act 2005, I request the PIO to inform me of the particulars of First Appellate Authority."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.11.2022 stating as under:
"This has reference to your RTI Application nos. NBCCL/R/E/22/00330 dated 17.11.2022.Page 2 of 4
In this regard, the requisite information, as received from the concerned deemed PIO, under the provisions of Sections- 5(4) & 5(5) of the RTI Act is hereby given as under:
The information sought for by the applicant has already been intimated to you vide letter no. NBCC/Vig./RTI/2022/1059 dated28.10.2022 (copy enclosed.) Accordingly, your application under the RTI Act is considered as disposed off."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 28.10.2022 stating as under:
"Inspection of related file/document of F.No.63(251)/15-Vig/Chapman Taylor/EKN/597 and F.No.63(251)/15-Vig/Chapman Taylor/EKN/821 is exempted from disclosure as per section 8 (1) (e), (j) & (g) of the RTI Act."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.12.2022. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Ms. Manjeeta Mahajan, CPIO-cum-General Manager, attended the hearing in person.
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent submitted that their vigilance department has denied the disclosure of information to the Appellant under Section 8 (1) (e), (j) & (g) of the RTI Act. She added that investigation in the averred matter is still under process and therefore the inspection of the record cannot be given to the Appellant under Section 8 1 (h) of the RTI Act.
The Commission interjected and asked the Appellant that whether he is the complainant in the averred matter, he replied in negative and added that he is a journalist and requires this information in larger public interest. The Page 3 of 4 Commission further asked the Appellant to specify the record/document which he requires, the Appellant stated that he only wants inspection of the relevant files.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant is only interested in inspection of the files the matter of which is still under investigation and in the light of the submission made by the Respondent during the hearing, the Commission is of the opinion that providing an opportunity of inspection of the records at this stage would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders and therefore, the Commission agrees with the stand taken by the Respondent. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)