Central Information Commission
Bichitra Kumar Mohapatra vs National Handloom Development ... on 10 November, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/NHDCL/A/2020/111742
In the matter of:
Bichitra Kumar Mohapatra
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
National Handloom Development Corporation Ltd,
Registered Office, Wegmans Business Park Tower 1,
Surajpur - Kasna Main Road,
Greater Noida, U.P. - 201306
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 13/11/2019 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 13/01/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal Filed on : 05/03/2020 Date of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Date of Decision : 09/11/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Present over intra VC Respondent: Shri Akshat Vatsa, Deputy Manager(HR) & CPIO, present over intra VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide copies of four quarterly Confidential Reports (CR) of the appellant for the financial year 2017-18.1
2. Provide copies of the Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) of Mr. Mohammad Haneef, Deputy Manager (Commercial) for the financial year 2016-17 and 2017-18.
3. Provide a copy of the Annual confidential Report (ACR) of Mr. V.K. Mahajan, Assistant Manager (Commercial) for the financial year 2017-18.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide any information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the desired information was not provided to him. He also submitted that for the ACRs of the 2nd 3rd and 4th quarter, his controlling authority had submitted the same to the higher authority but a copy has not been provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given by the FAA on 16.12.2020.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that for point no. 1 the appellant was informed that since he was under suspension, only the 1st quarter of the ACR was given by his controlling authority and a copy of the same was given to the appellant. For the rest of the points, the information was denied u/s 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission finds that the information on points no. 2 to 7 being personal information of other third parties, is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Hence, no further relief can be given to the appellant.
Regarding the delay, the CPIO had explained that due to unstable working conditions in their Office in the months of February & March and the impact of Covid-19 thereafter, there was unintentional delay in giving a reply to the appellant. The Commission finds the justification to be proper and hence a lenient view is taken in the matter.2
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3