Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Siva Kumar Ganiwada vs Spices Board on 11 October, 2024

                             केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/SPIBO/A/2023/635778

Siva Kumar Ganiwada                                   .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant



                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम


CPIO,
Deputy Director (Admin),
Spices Board, Sugandha Bhavan,
NH Bye Pass, Palarivattom,
Kochi - 682025                                        ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                     :    07.10.2024
Date of Decision                    :    10.10.2024

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    16.02.2023
CPIO replied on                     :    16.03.2023
First appeal filed on               :    18.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order   :    09.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    23.07.2022

Information sought

:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.02.2023 seeking the following information:

"1. Furnish a copy of existing transfer guidelines/policies followed in Spices Board to Group A, Group B and Group C employees.

2. Furnish the details regarding the employees of the board who are working at a location and same region continuously for more than five years

3. Furnish the details regarding the employees of the board who are working at a location and same region continuously for more than ten years

4. Furnish the details regarding the employees of the board who are working at a location and same region continuously for more than fifteen years

5. Furnish the details regarding the employees of the board who are working at a location and same region continuously for more than twenty years

6. Furnish the copy of transfer order issued to the employees of Spice Board from 2015 to till date"

The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 16.03.2023 stating as under:

"Ans. to Qstn. No.1): Board is following the transfer guidelines/policy applicable to Central Govt. employees as per the guidelines issued by the DOP&T. Ans. to Qstn. No. 2 to 5): Requested information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.

Ans. to Qstn. No.6): Information sought is not readily available and requires lot of compilation work which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Hence the request is rejected under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 09.05.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Shri Binesh, CPIO, appeared through video conference.

The appellant inter alia submitted that desired information was not provided by the respondent. He further submitted that information sought should have been given in public domain under suo motu disclosure.

The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had provided point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 16.03.2023 wherein they denied the information on point Nos. 2 to 6 of the RTI application under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act and 7 (9) of the RTI Act. As regards transfer of employee as sought on point No. 1 of the RTI application, the respondent stated that they follow the transfer guidelines/policy applicable to Central Govt. employees as per the guidelines issued by the DOP&T. Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that a point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 16.03.2023. The respondent has denied the information on point Nos. 2 to 5 of the RTI application on the ground of this party information and they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant failed to establish any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of information.

As regards point No. 6 of the RTI application, the respondent stated that information sought was not readily available and required lot of compilation work which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Therefore, they expressed their inability to provide the information under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005. The Commission finds that reply given by the respondent on point Nos. 2 to 6 of the RTI application is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act and intervention of the Commission is not warranted on those points.

Against point No. 1 of the RTI application, the respondent stated that information was available in public domain, however, they did not provide the relevant link. In view of this, the respondent is directed to provide the relevant link along with path on which information sought on point No. 1 of the RTI application is available in public domain, within two weeks' time from the date of receipt of this order.

The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.

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 Copy To:

First Appellate Authority, Spices Board, Sugandha Bhavan, NH Bye Pass, Palarivattom, Kochi - 682025 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)