Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Satish Ashok Sherkhane vs Spmcil Security Printing Press ... on 8 April, 2024

                                   के ीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                               बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SPPRE/A/2023/669760

Satish Ashok Sherkhane                                     ... अपीलकता/Appellant


                                    VERSUS
                                     बनाम

 CPIO: Security Printing and
 Minting Corporation of India                         ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
 Limited, New Delhi


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI :     08.10.2022       FA      : 13.12.2022            SA     : 28.12.2022

 CPIO : 21.11.2022          FAO : 27.12.2022                Hearing : 04.04.2024


Date of Decision: 05.04.2024

                                        CORAM:
                                  Hon'ble Commissioner
                                _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                       ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.10.2022 seeking the following information:

 Refer SPMCIL letter no. CHO(HR)/DP/38/02/2017/1328 dated 14.07.2022 duly signed by Shri Siddharth Srivastava w.r.t. MoF Letter no. 18/5/2020-SPMC dated 22.12.2021.

(a) Provide all the photocopies of the documents which are received by SPMCIL alongwith the file noting and signature of the concerned Employees of SPMCIL.

(b) With reference to the point no. C(1)(a), Provide all the photocopies of the documents which are prepared and executed, and action taken report by SPMCIL alongwith the file noting and signature of the concerned Employees of SPMCIL

(c) With reference to point no. C(1)(a) & (b), Provide Name & designation of the dealing employees at each & every stage.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"Point (i) - No documents has been received regarding above referred letter.

Point (ii) - With reference from reply of point no. C(1)(a), not applicable.

Point (iii) - Sh. Siddharth Srivastava, Manager (HR)."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.12.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 27.12.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.12.2022.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Shivangi Chandra, Divisional Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had provided information only in response to point no. (iii) of the RTI application. He further argued that the CPIO had given a misleading reply that they had not received any documents with respect to point nos (i) and (ii) of the RTI application. The appellant had enclosed a list of documents and claimed that he had proof of receipt of certain documents (marked in Sl. 75 to 79) by the respondent. However, the same was refuted by the CPIO in response to the RTI application.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they replied to the appellant vide letter dated 21.11.2022. They further stated that a list of the documents, as referred to by the appellant, was available with them. However, they confirmed that no such documents were received by them, as claimed by the appellant.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has given a point-wise reply to the appellant on 21.11.2022. During the hearing, the appellant drew attention to a list of documents (uploaded on the Commission's web portal) and contended that the respondent had allegedly received the documents enlisted in Sl Nos 75 to 79. However, the respondent re-confirmed that the documents, including those pointed out by the appellant, were not received at their end. Therefore, they had no information to be disclosed to the appellant, to that effect. In view of the above, there appears to be no infirmity with the reply given by the CPIO and the respondent may not be compelled to provide information not available under their custody. There appears to be no ground for further intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी राम लंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 05.04.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड)) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Security Printing and Minting Corporation Of India Limited (SPMCIL), Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Mini-Ratna Category-I, C.P.S.E., Corporate Office, 16th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi - 110001

2. Satish Ashok Sherkhane Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)