Central Information Commission
Mr.Jesingh Lal Manchhachand Shah vs Mumbai Port Trust on 27 June, 2012
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/001208/SS
Dated: 27.06.2012
Name of Appellant : Shri Jesinghlal M. Shah
Name of Respondent : Mumbai Port Trust
Date of Hearing : 26.09.2011
ORDER
Shri Jesinghlal M. Shah, hereinafter called the appellant has filed this appeal dated 29.11.2010 before the Commission against the respondent Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai for not providing information on Point No. 3(a) to 3(d) of his RTI-application dated 10.8.2010. The matter came up for hearing on 26.9.2011. The appellant was absent, whereas respondent were represented by Shri K.N. Puthran and Shri K.E. Sunil Kumar.
2. The appellant filed an application dated 10.8.2010 under the RTI Act, seeking information on three queries pertaining to the facts necessary for fixation of rent of the rooms of Modern Building No. 1 and 2 situated in the old RR No. 1876 in Sewree Estate (C.3 No. 22/147 Parel Sewree Division Mumbai. The description of information required as indicated as under: (a) Compromise proposals, including the tables, submitted ;by the BPT to the High Court of Mumbai in Civil Appeal No. 258 of 1991; (b) Whether the BPT has taken the symbolic possession of the above said property from LIC; (c) If yes, a copy of the document by which symbolic possession is delivered to BPT by LIC along with copy of the terms and conditions, fi any; and (d) According to BPT, what will be 2 Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/001208/SS rent per month or year (as the case may be) for my above said room No. 14, IIIrd floor, Modern Building No. 2, in the above said property bearing old RR No. 1876 in Sewree Estate, Mumbay 400015. The CPIO vide letter No. EM/U-2/SE- 70/3576 dated 27.8.2010 informed the appellant on Point No. (a) that the document desired should be clearly specified with date etc. In the absence of the same, no information can be furnished. On Point No. (b & c) the appellant was informed that no such information is available on the records of the Northern Division of this Department. Nevertheless, it may be stated that Suit bearing LE&C Suit No. 21/32 of 1984 was filed by Mumbai Port Trust against the lessee i.e. LIC which suit was decreed on 16.1.2007 in favour of MbPT. The decree was sought to be executed on 2.3.2009 when the same was obstructed y Shri R.J. Ozha & 68 Ors and presently obstructionist's Notice No. 256 of 2009 for removal of obstructionists is pending and thus, the matter is subjudice. On Item No. (d) the appellant was informed that no such information was available in the records maintained by the Northern Division of MbPT.
3. Aggrieved by the reply of CPIO, the appellant preferred first-appeal on 23.9.2010 before FAA. The FAA vide his order No. AA/RTI/AAOrder39/6653 dated 22.10.2010 upheld the reply of the CPIO with the observation that the CPIO is not expected to interpret or compile information sought by an applicant. He is expected to make available information available in material form without disproportionately diverting the limited resources available with the pubic authority. In case the RTI applicant is not sure about the documents required by him/her, has the option to seek inspection of the documents, which the appellant may consider doing now.
4. During the hearing the respondent submit that the appellant has sought a copy of document viz. compromise proposals including tables submitted by MbPT in Bombay High Court Civil Appeal No. 258 of 1991. When a matter is pending in the Court, it is possible that a number of Affidavits and documents were tendered at various dates. It is, therefore, necessary that the documents 3 Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/001208/SS desired by the appellant are clearly specified with date. The public authority cannot be expected to interpret the information sought by the appellant. The appellant was also provided an opportunity by the FAA for inspection of the relevant records, which the appellant did not avail.
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that the information as sought by the appellant is not specific and the respondent have provided an opportunity to the appellant for inspection of relevant records/files which the appellant has not availed. The Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide another opportunity to the appellant for inspection of the relevant records/files within two weeks of receipt of this order. The CPIO would provide the copies of relevant documents as identified by the appellant on payment of the requisite fee.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Shri Jesinghlal M. Shah, Room No. 14, 3rd Floor, Modern Building No. 2, Zakaria Bunder Road, Cotton Green, Mumbai-400015.
The CPIO, Mumbai Port Trust, Northern Division, Estate Department, Vijaydeep, 3rd Floor, Soorji Vallabhdas Marg, Mumbai-400001.
The First Appellate Authority, Mumbai Port Trust, 4 Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/001208/SS Port House, 2nd Floor, S.V. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001.