Central Information Commission
Shri Avadesh Kumar vs O/O The Commissioner Of Industries, ... on 17 April, 2009
Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No. 3879/IC(A)/2008
F. No. CIC/MA/A/2009/00193
Dated, the 17th April, 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Avadesh Kumar
Name of the Public Authority : O/o the Commissioner of Industries,
GNCT of Delhi
1
Facts:
1. Both the parties were heard on 16.04.2009.
2. In the course of hearing, it emerged that the PIO has duly furnished the requested information, namely certified copies of the application for the registration of 'Gandhian Satyagraha Bridge; alongwith all the enclosures therewith and file notings from the respective file, till the final decision'.
3. On demand from the PIO, the appellant paid Rs. 204/- for 102 pages of the documents, which comprise the complete file containing all the relevant papers including the communication received from the appellant.
4. During the hearing, the appellant alleged that the PIO has illegally charged Rs. 54/- for the documents submitted by him. He pleaded for refund of this amount of Rs. 54/-. In response to this, the PIO stated that the appellant had If you don't ask, you don't get - Mahatma Gandhi 1 requested for all the documents, hence the photocopy of entire file was provided. No attempt was made to withhold any part of document contained in the file. Moreover, the appellant did not specifically asked the PIO to segregate the papers on the basis of source of receipt of documents. He therefore argued that he has not erred in supplying the information
5. The appellant also alleged that the documents furnished to him were forged by the respondent and he submitted evidence to this effect. In his response to appellant's allegation about the forged documents, the PIO explained and said that the appellant had requested for the information for specified period. At the later stage and as the matter progressed, additional file notings were recorded by the concerned officials, which probably caused some confusion in the mind of appellant. He thus argued that the appellant's allegation about forging of documents was baseless and untrue.
Decision:
6. The PIO has furnished the requested information at the charge of Rs. 204/-, which was willingly provided by the appellant for obtaining complete documents contained in the concerned file. At the time of demand for Rs. 204/-, the appellant did not raise any objection or sought for any clarification about the calculation of charges made by him. Nor did he specifically asked to severe certain papers, namely those submitted by him.
7. There was therefore no malafide intention on the part of PIO to charge money for the documents submitted by the appellant, which was part of the complete file on the subject. The appellant's plea for refund of the excessive charges of Rs. 54/- as collected by the PIO is therefore rejected.
8. As regards, the appellant's allegation about the forgery committed by the respondent, the PIO's justification is accepted. The PIO has maintained total 2 transparency in disclosure of the concerned file in its entirely, which should be appreciated.
9. Even though the PIO has furnished complete information, as requested, the appellant has filed this appeal before the Commission for recovery of Rs. 54/- without realizing the total costs burden on the society for disposal of such frivolous appeals and complaints. This is highly regrettable act of the appellant.
10. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma) Assistant Registrar Name and address of parties: 2
1. Shri Avadesh Kumar, A-16, Pundrik Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-110034.
2. Shri M.P. Sharma, Registrar (Societies) Delhi, Office of the Commissioner of Industries, GNCT of Delhi, Udyog Sadan 419, FIE, Patparganj, Delhi-
110092.
All men by nature desire to know - Aristotle 3