Central Information Commission
Mr.Shyammoorjani vs Central Vigilance Commission on 3 December, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/900604
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 3 December 2012
Date of decision : 3 December 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri S C Moorjani,
E/2, MTNL Staff Quarters,
1st Floor, SV Road, Goregaon (W),
Mumbai - 400 062.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan, GPO Complex,
Block A, INA, New Delhi - 110 023.
The Appellant was present along with Shri S.K. Gowda.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Dal Chand, Under Secretary, was
present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant was present in the Mumbai studio of the NIC along with his representative. The Respondent was present in our chamber. We heard all their submissions.
3. In his RTI application, the Appellant had sought a number of information in respect of the intensive inspection by the CTE of the Structural Rehabilitation Work undertaken in some buildings in Mumbai. The CPIO had provided most of CIC/SM/A/2012/900604 the information, some against payment of photocopying charges, while denying some other information by invoking the exemption provisions contained in subsection 1(h) of section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Appellate Authority had endorsed the stand taken by the CPIO.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant argued that the information was wrongly denied and without giving adequate justification. Besides, he also argued that there was no reason for not providing the information free of charge as the CPIO had responded late. We have closely examined the facts of the case. The claim for getting the information free of charge does not stand since the CPIO had indicated the cost of the information within the stipulated period and had provided the information after receiving the said charges. However, in regard to the advice tendered by the CVC for initiating disciplinary proceedings against some officials, we do not agree with the CPIO and are of the view that this should be disclosed. The advice tendered by the CVC in such cases cannot be said to be such information the disclosure of which can impede the process of the disciplinary proceedings because it is advisory in nature and it is for the disciplinary authority to accept or not accept such advice. In the light of this, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order the attested photocopies of the relevant advice given by the CVC in this case.
5. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. CIC/SM/A/2012/900604 (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/2012/900604