Central Information Commission
C M Nimje vs Central Water And Power Research ... on 15 September, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : As per Annexure
C M NIMJE ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central water and Power Research
Station (CWPRS), M/o Jal Shakti, Khadakwasla
RS PO, Sinhagad Road, Pune,
MH-411024 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/09/2023
Date of Decision : 14/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision
as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal (s):
RTI application filed on : 15/10/2022, 21/10/2022, 07/01/2023 &
08/01/2023
CPIO replied on : 13/11/2022, 18/11/2022 & 05/02/2023
First appeals filed on : 08/12/2022 & 02/03/2023
First Appellate Authority orders : 06/01/2023, 06/01/2023 & 28/03/2023
2nd Appeals dated : 23/03/2023 & 15/04/2023
1
CIC/CWPRS/A/2023/615261
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"1) Kindly provide the certified copies of all file notings for issuing memo No. 614/556/Esto. III/2022/551, dated 07-10-2022 against me.
2) Kindly provide the information regarding CCS(Conduct) Rules for intimation of registration of FIR after granting anticipatory bail in police case against Government employee.
3) Kindly provide the information regarding specific CCS (Conduct) Rules which is alleged to be violated by me for issuing memo No. 614/556/Esto.lll/2022/551, dated 07-10-2022 against me.
4) Kindly provide the information regarding limitation rules for intimation of registration of FIR in good faith after granting anticipatory bail in my case which is alleged to be violated by me for issuing memo No. 614/556/Esta.III/2022/551, dated 07-10-2022 against me
5) Kindly provide the information regarding the specific rules for intimation regarding every stage of police case to the concerned office from the concerned employee from time to time
6) Kindly provide the information regarding any rules for 10 days' time limit for explanation from the date of issuing memo No. 614/556/Esto.III/2022/551, dated 07-10-2022 is provided.
7) Kindly provide the information regarding rules for issuing memo No 614/556/Esto.III/2022/551, dated 07-10-2022 against the principal of natural justice.
8) Kindly provide the information regarding reasons for registration of FIR against the employee is interpreted as arrest and detention word in my case.2
9) Kindly provide the information regarding reasons for intimation of registration of FIR to the administration in good faith is treated as suppression of fact in my case.
10) Kindly provide the information regarding list of memo which are issued by administration against employees in CWPRS, Pune.
11) Kindly provide the administration information regarding gross misconduct reports have been made against any employees of CWPRS, Pune from the year 2011.
12) Kindly provide the formation regarding reasons for disciplinary action had not taken against any employee of CWPRS Pune by administration who was involved in gross misconduct activities
13) Kindly provide the information regarding training / notices are given by the administration to the CWPRS employees for educating the concerned CCS (Conduct) Rules
14) Kindly provide the information regarding list of SC/ST/OBC employees against whom memos are issued by administration of CWPRS."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 13.11.2022 stating as under:
"1. Information sought is voluminous, the applicant is requested to visit the administration section with prior appointment for further detailed information as he is working on the same campus.
2 & 3. As per GOI's decision rule (2) and Rule (3).
4 & 7. The question is vague.
5. As per GOI's decision rule (2) and Rule (3).
6. As per the discretionary power of the competent authority.
8 & 9. Information under RTI is not supposed to be created or interpreted.3
10 & 11. Information sought is exempt u/s 8(1)(j) as it relates to personal information.
12. Information under RTI is not supposed to be created or interpreted.
13. Done from time to time as per requirements.
14. The information sought is vague."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.12.2022. FAA's order dated 06.01.2023 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
CIC/CWPRS/A/2023/615263 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"1) Kindly provide the information of Ministry of Jal Shakti and subordinate offices regarding CCS(Conduct) Rules for intimation of registration of FIR after granting anticipatory bail in police case against Government employee.
2) Kindly provide the information of Ministry of Jal Shakti and Subordinate offices regarding limitation rules for intimation of registration of FIR in good faith after granting anticipatory bail
3) Kindly provide the information of Ministry of Jal Shakti and Subordinate offices regarding the specific rules for intimation regarding every stage of police case to the concerned office from the concerned employee from time to time.
4) Kindly provide the information of Ministry of Jal Shakti and subordinate offices regarding any rules for 10 days' time limit for explanation from the date of issuing memo."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 18.11.2022 stating as under:
4"Information sought is not specific hence same cannot be provided.
Note: The information is provided by Central Water and Power Research Station, Khadakwasla Research Station Post Office PIN 411024, Pune (Maharashtra) only. Central Water and Power Research Station (Khadakwasla Research Station post office. Sinhagad Road, PIN 411024) is a subordinate office of the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of Water Resources, RD and GR and has an office at Pune, Maharashtra."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.12.2022. FAA's order, dated 08.01.2023 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
CIC/CWPRS/A/2023/615270 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"1) Kindly provide the certified copies of all file notings regarding my MACP case after completing my 20 years' service in CWPRS, Pune.
2) Kindly provide the information regarding rule which has been implemented in My MACP case by the administration after the intimation of registration of FIR after granting anticipatory bail.
3) Kindly provide the certified copies of all file notings regarding my promotion on superintendent post after completing all eligible criteria.
4) Kindly provide the information regarding rule which has been implemented in my Promotion case by the administration after the intimation of registration of FIR after granting anticipatory bail.
5) Kindly provide the information regarding updated status of my MACP and Promotion cases
6) Kindly provide the information regarding reasons for non-implementation of DOPT OM No. 22011/5/86-Estt. (D), dated 10th April, 1989 in my promotion case after the intimation of registration of FIR after granting anticipatory bail 5
7) Kindly provide the information regarding reasons for non-implementation of DOPT OM No. 35034/3/2015-Estt. (D), dated 22nd October 2019 in my MACP case after the intimation of registration of FIR after granting anticipatory bail.
8) Kindly provide the information regarding list of employees whose promotion orders have not been issued on time and reasons for delay in such cases.
9) Kindly provide the information regarding reasons for delay in providing three weeks training as per notified rules of superintendent post of the eligible employees.
10) Kindly provide the information regarding rules for promotion cases of Group C and Group B employees."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 13.11.2022 stating as under:
"1) As per information sought is voluminous, the applicant is requested to visit the administration section with prior appointment for further detailed information as he is working on the same campus.
2) The case is under consideration.
3 & 4) The case is under process.
5) The reply is as per the reply given in 2 and 4 above.
6 & 7) Information is not supposed to be created or interpreted.
8) the information sought is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
9) The question is vague.
10) As per recruitment rules."
6Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.12.2022. FAA's order, dated 06.01.2023, concurs with the reply of the CPIO.
CIC/CWPRS/A/2023/615271 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.10.2022 seeking the following information:
1) Kindly provide the certified copy of ministry letter for issuing circular No. 602/12/Estt.1/2022/1702, dated 21st September 2022.
2) Kindly provide the certified copies of all file notings regarding amendment / framing the recruitment rules of Chief Administrative Officer from the year 2018.
3) Kindly provide the list of stakeholders who are taken objection and have submitted their comments after issuing circular No. 602/12/Estt 1/2022/1702, dated 21st September 2022
4) Kindly provide the reasons for issuing circular No. 602/12/Estt.1/2022/1702, dated 21st September 2022 against the DOPT OM No. AB- 14017/61/2008-Estt (RR), dated 13-10-2015
5) Kindly provide the list of stakeholders who are taken objection/ had submitted their comments in the case of Amendment / framing the recruitment rules of Superintendent post in CWPRS, Pune in August 2021.
6) Kindly provide the certified copy of circular which is issued in the case of Amendment / framing the recruitment rules of Superintendent post in CWPRS, Pune for calling comments from the stakeholders
7) Kindly provide the certified copies of all file notings for the amendment / framing the recruitment rules of Superintendent post thereby adding three weeks training of administration and accounts in the recruitment rules.
8) Kindly provide the reasons for the amendment/ framing the recruitment rules of Chief Administrative Officer Post and Superintendent post against the DoPT rules.7
9) Kindly provide the information regarding all letter number and issuing dated for sending proposal for amendment / framing of recruitment rules of Chief Administrative Officer, CWPRS, Pune
10) Kindly provide the information regarding number of times sending proposal for amendment / framing of recruitment rules of Chief Administrative Officer, CWPRS, Pune from the year 2018."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 13.11.2022 stating as under:
"1) Information sought is not specific, hence same cannot be provided.
2) As per information sought is voluminous, the applicant is requested to visit the administration section with prior appointment for further detailed information as he is working on the same campus.
3 & 5) The information sought is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
4 & 8) Information is not supposed to be created or interpreted.
6) No circular is issued for seeking comments of stakeholders in case of Amendment the recruitment rules of Superintendent post in CWPRS.
7 & 9) As per information sought is voluminous, the applicant is requested to visit the administration section with prior appointment for further detailed information as he is working on the same campus.
10) The question is vague."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.12.2022. FAA's order, dated 06.01.2023, concurs with the reply of the CPIO.
CIC/CWPRS/A/2023/619058 Information sought:
8The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.01.2023 seeking the following information:
"1) Kindly provide the information regarding rules /provision for mentioning individual SC/ST/OBC employees caste/tribe name and personal information in the Office Order and circulate among the employees through Intranet etc.
2) Kindly provide the information regarding number of SC/ST/OBC employees whose personal information and their caste/ tribe names mentioned in Office Order and circulate among the employees through Intranet etc.
3) Kindly provide the information regarding number of defamation incidents and court cases of SC/ST/OBC employees whose personal information and their caste/ tribe names mentioned in Office Order and circulate among the employees through intranet etc.
4) Kindly provide the information regarding CWPRS rights/authority for defamation of SC/ST/OBC employees by circulating their personal caste/tribe's name information among the employees through Office Orders."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 05.02.2023 stating as under:
"The question is vague."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.03.2023. FAA's order dated 28.03.2023 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
CIC/CWPRS/A/2023/619062 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.01.2023 seeking the following information:
"1) Kindly provide the information regarding all concerned file numbers for seeking clarification in my promotion case pertaining to my caste/tribe status.9
2) Kindly provide the information regarding Ministry /DoPT instruction /direction /orders/guidelines/OM received in CWPRS for seeking clarification in my promotion case pertaining to my caste/tribe status.
3) Kindly provide the information regarding Ministry/DOPT instruction/direction/ orders/guidelines/OM received in CWPRS pertaining to reschedule of my caste/tribe's name from the Scheduled Tribes list.
4) Kindly provide the information regarding CWPRS authority/rights for taking decision against reports already submitted before Hon. Court under MoWR GM No. 2/6/2005/vig. dated 4rth July 2005.
5) Kindly provide the information regarding CWPRS authority/rights for taking decision against the MoWR OM No. 2/6/2005/wg, dated 4th July 2005.
6) Kindly provide the information regarding CWPRS authority/nights for taking decision against special vigilance committee under the Chairmanship of CBI report under MoWR OM No. 2/6/2005/vig, dated 4rth July 2005.
7) Kindly provide the information regarding reasons for seeking clarification after lapse of 4 years of Hon Supreme Court Decision at the time of my promotion to harass me.
8) Kindly provide the information regarding rules/provision for RBI rules and decision is applicable to all the employees of CWPRS.
9) Kindly provide the information regarding rules/provision for taking decision against service condition in my promotion case.
10) Kindly provide the information regarding rules/provision for reserved category persons appointed in Open Category or give reserved category then such cases will be applicable to CWPRS reserved category employee.
11) Kindly provide the information regarding rules/provision for misguiding by legal assistant in CWPRS is mandatory.
12) Kindly provide the information regarding rules/provision for manipulation by legal assistant is mandatory."10
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 05.02.2023 stating as under:
"Information under RTI is not supposed to be created or interpreted."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.03.2023. FAA's order, dated 28.03.2023, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
CIC/CWPRS/A/2023/619063 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.01.2023 seeking the following information:
"1) Kindly provide the information regarding reasons for CWPRS comments for the direct promotion of legal assistant on Chief Administrative Officer post mentioning that since the office of Chief Administrative Officer is entrusted with various responsibilities it would be very difficult for an outsider to deal and to adapt with the nature of work considering the ongoing developments in Administrative Spheres with the responsibilities and execute them in an effective manner all within 3 years as per file noting of Ministry received under RTI Act. (File noting copy is enclosed)
2) Kindly provide the information regarding reasons for outsider deputation on CAO post in CWPRS against the observation/comments given by CWPRS to Ministry that since the office of Chief Administrative Officer is entrusted with various responsibilities it would be very difficult for an outsider to deal and to adapt with the nature of work considering the ongoing developments in Administrative Spheres with the responsibilities and execute them in an effective manner all within 3 years as per file noting of Ministry received under RTI Act. (File noting copy is enclosed)
3) Kindly provide the information regarding any administrative training given to insider legal assistant who is not administrative discipline for the direct promotion on Chief Administrative Officer post as per file noting of Ministry received under RTI Act.11
4) Kindly provide the information regarding reasons for allowing the representation of insider legal assistant for amendment of recruitment rules of Chief Administrative Officer for his personal benefit within 4 years.
5) Kindly provide the information of number of employees who have given representation for the amendment of recruitment rules o Chief Administrative Officer as per their eligibility and their post is coming in administrative discipline.
6) Kindly provide the information regarding insider legal assistant having discretion to make negative notings against DoPT /Ministry OM /rules/provision.
7) Kindly provide the information regarding all recruitment /promotion files rotate through insider legal assistant for his negative and positive comments.
8) Kindly provide the information regarding insider legal assistant has given the duties of Administrative, Accounts and Establishment works in a supervisory capacity for direct promotion on Chief Administrative Officer Post in CWPRS, Pune."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 05.02.2023 stating as under:
"Information under RTI is not supposed to be created or interpreted."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.03.2023. FAA's order, dated 28.03.2023, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: A A Purohit, Scientist E & CPIO along with Vishal Dilip, Deemed PIO present through video-conference.12
The written submissions (copy marked to the Appellant) filed by the CPIO in each case prior to the hearing are taken on record.
At the outset, the deemed PIO narrated at length the factual background or in other words the genesis of instant matter to be lodging of an FIR against the Appellant by a victim for alleged outraging the modesty of a woman, for which he subsequently got an anticipatory bail as well. He further added that however, since such events would not exonerate employees from any disciplinary actions by their employer as also the fact remains that it is under professional ethics to intimate such events to his employer to maintain integrity in the system; but he expressed his reluctance to do the needful. With initiation of such action, the Appellant started troubling the Respondent by filing multiple RTI Applications. It can be deduced from mere contents of RTI Applications that the queries raised by the Appellant are majorly do not even conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act; nonetheless, each of his RTI Applications was responded to on every occasions. In addition to it, an opportunity of inspection of relevant records was also offered to the Appellant many times; yet, the fact remains that despite working in the same office premises, he avoided to avail of the said opportunity till date. Apart from this, the Appellant also raised an issue regarding his non-promotion, MACP and other benefits in pursuance of an order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2002 regarding his caste .
Lastly, the CPIO summed up his arguments with the words that there was no malafide intent from their part to hide any information in terms of RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission after hearing submissions of the CPIO and considering all the facts of the case in hand would like to recall its earlier decisions in another Appeal of the same Appellant in case file no. CIC/CWPRS/A/2022/653106 decided on 19.05.2023 with the aforesaid observations -
" The Commission upon a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of instant RTI Application observes that the information sought by the Appellant is indeterminate and also appears to be voluminous in nature, collation and compilation of which would entail diversion of manpower resources of the Public Authority and thus, cannot be provided in view of Section 7(9) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from the relevant provisions of Section 7(9) of RTI Act which is reproduced below for ready reference -13
"...7. Disposal of request.--
xxx (9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question..."
It also appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. xxxxx The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."(Emphasis Supplied)......."
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, 14 orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:15
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied)......."
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, adverting to the fact that the gamut of information sought by the Appellant through instant RTI Applications again reflects towards his grievance for service matter/ action initiated against him by their organization and the matter pursued by him so far by resorting to multiple RTI Applications is indicative of the fact that he is not accessing his right to information per se but seeks to channelize his agony against the service-related grievance through the channel of RTI Act by mortifying the CPIOs for not providing the information to his satisfaction. In other words, he appears to be not satisfied with the manner CWPRS (Respondent Public Authority) dealt with his grievance and therefore, is seeking to redress his grievance by way of the RTI Act. Therefore, in furtherance of the earlier observations, the Appellant's attention is invited to certain more precedents of the superior Courts that recognize the misuse of the RTI Act as under:
In ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
'39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The 16 competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' And, in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'...xxx 'This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.' Adverting to the above observations, the Commission is not inclined to question the merits of the CPIO's reply in the instant matter. The Appellant is advised to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications on the same grievance as his future appeals/complaint on the same matter are liable to be summarily dismissed. The Appellant is further advised to pursue his grievance emanating from the inaction/action taken on his representations through appropriate channel.
Nonetheless, to allay the apprehension of the Appellant the Commission hereby directs the CPIO (Nodal Officer) to reiterate the last opportunity of inspection of relevant available records as sought for in the impugned RTI Applications to the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time as discussed during the hearing. The intimation of the date & time of inspection will be provided to the Appellant 17 telephonically and in writing by the CPIO. Copy of documents, as identified and desired by the Appellant shall be provided free of cost upto 50 pages and thereafter upon receipt of RTI fees as per RTI Rules, 2012 be provided by the CPIO. In doing so, the CPIO is at liberty to redact the relevant records of third party's disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act by keeping in view the applicability of Section 10 of RTI Act for severance of records.
The CPIO is also directed to ensure that due assistance is provided to the Appellant during the inspection in accessing and identifying the records. The said direction should be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect should be sent to the Commission by the CPIO incorporating the details of the records provided for the inspection and copies thereof, immediately thereafter.
The appeal (s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 18 S. No File No
1. CIC/CWPRS/A/2023/615261
2. CIC/CWPRS/A/2023/615263
3. CIC/CWPRS/A/2023/615270
4. CIC/CWPRS/A/2023/615271
5. CIC/CWPRS/A/2023/619058
6. CIC/CWPRS/A/2023/619062
7. CIC/CWPRS/A/2023/619063 19