Central Information Commission
Mrshankar Prasad vs Ministry Of Earth Sciences on 13 October, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/KY/A/2014/000039
Appellant : Sh. Shankar Prasad
Asst. Meteorologist Grade-II
Room No. B-8, Upper Air Lab
O/o. DDGM (UI) Lodi Road, New Delhi-03
Public Authority : The Scientist -C & CPIO
India Meteorological Department
O/o. the Dte. Gen. of Meteorology,
Mausam Bhawan, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003
Date of Hearing : 13.10.2014
Date of Decision : 13.10.2014
Presence:
Appellant : Sh. Shankar Prasad
CPIO : Sh. V K Soni, Scientist-D & CPIO
FACTS:
1. Vide RTI application dated 18.09.2013, the Appellant sought information on the 7 issues.
2. CPIO, vide its response dated 23.09.2013, not provided the information u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
3. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 15.10.2013, as the desired information was not provided
4. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide its order dated 24.10.2013, upheld the decision of CPIO.
5. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 12.11.2013, are contained in the Memorandum of Appeal.
6. HEARING Appellant as well as respondent appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 18.09.2013, sought information from the respondents on seven issues. Respondents vide their response dated 23.09.2013, denied the required information to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 15.10.2013 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 24.10.2013, upheld the decision of CPIO. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the CPIO, vide his response dated 23.09.2013, denied the required information to the appellant by taking a plea under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005. Further, learned FAA, vide his order dated 24.10.2013, disposed of the FA by upholding the views of CPIO.
3. As per submissions made by Sh. V K Soni, Scientist-D & CPIO, respondents opted not to respond the issue no. 1 & 2 of ht RTI application dated 18.09.2013, simply because issue no. 1 does not fall within the four corners of the section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005 and issue no. 2 is in a question form. However, on being queried by the Commission, regarding the reply provided to the appellant against issue no. 4 to 7 of the RTI application dated 18.09.2013. On this very aspect, it is submitted by Sh. V K Soni, that these issues of the RTI application fall within the four corners of exemption clause i.e. section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005 (personal information).
4. It is needless to mention here that respondents, vide their response dated 04.11.2013, provided the required information to the appellant against issue no. 3 of the RTI application. On this very aspect, it is already been submitted by the appellant, that even the reply provided by the respondents, vide their letter dated 04.11.2013, against issue no. 3, is incomplete. On being queried by the Commission, as what is the short coming in the reply, so provided, by the respondents against issue no. 3. On this very aspect, Sh. Shankar Prasad, appellant, expressed his inability to respond the query posed by the Commission.
5. The Commission heard the submissions made by appellant as well as respondents at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; especifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 18.09.2013, respondent's response dated 23.09.2013, FAA's order dated 24.10.2013 respondent's subsequent response dated 04.11.2013 and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
6. In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commission is of the considered view that the respondents have provided the required information to the appellant in terms of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005. In view of this, the Commission feels that the appellant's second appeal becomes redundant in this regard. Thus, the appellant's second appeal deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, it is dismissed.
The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (K. L. Das) Deputy Registrar The Scientist -C & CPIO India Meteorological Department, O/o. the Dte. Gen. of Meteorology, Mausam Bhawan, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 Shri Shankar Prasad Asst. Meteorologist Grade-II Room No. B-8, Upper Air Lab O/o. DDGM (UI) Lodi Road, New Delhi-03