Central Information Commission
Nathu Dadu Gahin vs Indian Navy on 13 February, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/INAVY/A/2017/183510/SD
Nathu Dadu Gahin ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Integrated Headquarters,
Ministry of Defence (Navy)
New Delhi - 110011. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 18/04/2017
CPIO replied on : 23/06/2017
First appeal filed on : 21/07/2017
First Appellate Authority order : 11/10/2017
Second Appeal dated : 01/12/2017
Date of Hearing : 13/02/2019
Date of Decision : 13/02/2019
Information sought:
The Appellant sought copies of documents referred at para 07 of the noting wherein proposal for conducting DPC for the post of PAO processed by T Hussain on 27.12.2016; copy of legal notice dated 23.12.2016 received from Advocate LC Kranti; and clarifications regarding transfer policy followed in T HUssain's case.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.1
Respondent: Cdr-At- Arms Virendra K Rana, CPIO, IHQ of MoD (Navy), New Delhi present in person.
Appellant stated that he wants to expose the department in protecting the wrong doings of one Manjot Singh Bindra, a retired Naval Personnel and has sought all information pertaining to him only.
CPIO submitted that information sought has been appropriately denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the minutes of DPC and relevant file noting sought at para 3(c) of the RTI Application has already been provided to the Appellant.
Appellant further stated that he has not been provided with a copy of Advocate's notice dated 23.12.2016 sought at para 3 (e) of the RTI Application. CPIO interjected to state that the said legal notice was sent on behalf of the Appellant himself.
Appellant denied this contention of the CPIO.
Decision Commission observes from the perusal of facts on record that the scope of action is pertinent only on para (e) of the RTI Application. CPIO has erred in denying the information without citing any exemption clause of RTI Act. The contention that notice was sent on Appellant's behalf itself is irrelevant to the proceedings before the Commission.
Commission directs the CPIO to provide available and relevant document sought at para 3 (e) of the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
2
File No : CIC/INAVY/A/2017/183510/SD
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by User
Date: 2019.02.13 15:58:38 IST
3