Central Information Commission
Mr. P S Saboo vs Ut Of Andaman And Nicobar on 15 March, 2013
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001594
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 15 March 2013
Date of decision : 15 March 2013
Name of the Appellant : Shri P S Saboo,
Kesava Sahadeva Sadnam,
Opp. Airport, Lamba Line,
Junglighat (PO), Port Blair - 744 103.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Andaman and Nicobar
Administration, O/o. the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests, Andaman &
Nicobar Island, Van Sadan Haddo,
Port Blair.
The Appellant was represented by Shri S. Gopinathan.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri K.B Singh, CF (HQ) was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. Both the parties were present during the hearing. We heard their submissions. In his RTI application, the Appellant had sought a number of information on a variety of subjects. Some of the queries were about the procurement of laptops between 1st January and 30th January 2012 for the office and some other queries were about the educational qualification of several officials functioning in the department. Since the Appellant had desired the inspection of the records, the CPIO had allowed him such inspection but the Appellant has claimed that he had not been shown all the relevant files. Out of the limited files which the Appellant had inspected, he had identified some 18 pages of documents the photocopies of which had been offered by the CPIO against payment of charges but the Appellant, it seems, has not procured it by CIC/SM/A/2012/001594 making the necessary payment. He preferred an appeal instead complaining that several other documents and files had not been shown to him. The Appellate Authority directed the CPIO to show the remaining files and documents to the Appellant and provide the identified documents, free of charge.
3. We have carefully considered the facts of the case. The representative of the Appellant submits that the files relating to the procurement of laptops had not been shown to the Appellant. If the Appellant is interested to see these files, there should be no reason why this cannot be shown to him. Therefore, we now direct the CPIO to invite the Appellant on any mutually convenient date within 15 working days of receiving this order and to show him all the files and documents relating to the procurement of laptops during the last 12 years starting from the year 2000.
4. The CPIO should also provide to the Appellant 18 pages of documents which he had initially offered against payment of photocopying charges. As far as the educational certificates of some officers and employees are concerned, the CPIO can make a list of those officers and employees and indicate and provide the available educational certificates for each one of them, free of charge. However, if there is no educational certificate available for any of these officers and employees, he should clearly say so.
5. The CPIO shall provide the educational certificates for all the officers and employees listed in serial No. 7 & 8 of the RTI application and also the certified copy of the bill of the memento presented to Shri L.V. Sudhir Kumar, Director General of Audits for the Exit Conference held on 11 April 2012. CIC/SM/A/2012/001594
5. We direct the CPIO to provide all this information within 10 working days of receiving this order. Needless to say, if any of this information is not available in material form, the CPIO shall very clearly state so while replying to the Applicant.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/001594