Central Information Commission
Ashish Kumar Tyagi vs India Security Press, Nashik Road on 29 April, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/ISPNR/A/2024/608842
Ashish Kumar Tyagi ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Indian Security Press, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Nashik, Maharashtra
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 02.01.2024 FA : 16.01.2024 SA : Nil
CPIO : 04.01.2024 FAO : 12.02.2024 Hearing : 29.04.2025
Date of Decision: 29.04.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1) On which date the non judicial revenue stamp paper, numbered 02BB 485379 & 02BB 485377 having value Rs.15000/- each, were printed/published/produced/came into existence?
2) On which date the non judicial revenue stamp paper, numbered 058183, 058184,
058196 & 058197 having value Rs.100/- each, were
printed/published/produced/came into existence?Page 1 of 4
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
The information sought is secret and from security point of view, cannot be provided to any individual person and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 section 8(1) (a) & (e) the said information cannot be acceded under the Act. However, ISP can provide this information only to Govt. Investigating Agencies and Honourable Courts where the document / stamp is under dispute. Information to these Govt. Agencies is given only after scientific examination of original document / stamp which is received from these Govt. Investigating Agencies and Honourable Courts.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.01.2024 alleging that the CPIO has improperly denied the requested information. The FAA vide order dated 12.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent P. Shyam Kumar, Manager (TC) & PIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent has improperly denied the information by invoking the exemption under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the CPIO should be directed to provide the requested information, as the appellant's queries do not fall within the scope of the claimed exemption. He also referred to a previous decision of the Commission dated 17.08.2018, delivered in the second appeal bearing File No. CIC/ISPNR/A/2017/136447-BJ, stating that the queries raised in that case were similar to those in the present RTI application, and the Commission had directed the respondent to furnish the requested information.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information requested relates to the printing/publishing dates of certain non-judicial stamp papers mentioned in the application, which, according to the respondent, cannot be disclosed due to concerns regarding the protection of the country's economic interests. When the Page 2 of 4 Commission inquired about the impact of disclosure in terms of economic interests, the respondent reiterated their written submission dated 25.04.2025, which stated as follows:
"It is pertinent to state that many of times the Non Judicial stamps in question are used by the public and the queries related to these stamps are oftenly raised approx. after 02-03 years. Hence disclosure of the sensitive details like, year of printing, serial numbers etc. might tends to any misuse of stamp papers and ultimately would adversely affect the economic interest of the country or lead to incitement of an offence (to print forge back-dated documents by using this security information). Similar cases of forgeries are approaching to verify the genuineness of Stamps at Forgery Detection Cell of India Security Press, Nashik Road."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent has provided an appropriate response to the information sought by the appellant through the instant RTI application. While the appellant referred to the Commission's earlier decision dated 17.08.2018 in the second appeal bearing File No. CIC/ISPNR/A/2017/136447-BJ, it is noted that the facts of that case and the information requested in the current RTI application are materially distinguishable and, therefore, the cited decision is not applicable. In light of the above, the Commission finds no irregularity in the response provided by the respondent that would warrant any intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 29.04.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Page 3 of 4 Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Indian Security Press, Nashik Road, Nashik, Maharashtra - 422101
2. Ashish Kumar Tyagi Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)