Central Information Commission
D Dhananjaya vs Archaeological Survey Of India on 27 May, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/ALSOI/A/2021/117838 -UM
Mr.D Dhananjaya
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Archaeological Survey Of India
Office Of The Superintending Archaeologist
Hampi Circle Kamalapur, PIN-583221
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.05.2022
Date of Decision : 27.05.2022
Date of RTI application 23.01.2021
CPIO's response 05.02.2021
Date of the First Appeal 12.02.2021
First Appellate Authority's response 06.04.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 28.04.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-
"Certified Xerox copy of M Books (Measurement Book0 maintained by Archaeological Survey of India, Hampi Circle for the years 2019-20 and 2020-21 (Two financial years) in all works during the said periods."Page 1 of 3
The CPIO vide letter dated 05.02.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 06.04.2021, also furnished a reply to the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission. HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. D Dhananjaya participated through VC, Respondent: Ms. Premacasi, Assistant Superintend of Archaeological Survey participated through VC.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Applications stated that he had sought information regarding documents of MB maintained by the ASI, Hampi Circle, etc. She further stated that the reply which had been furnished is not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 05.02.2021, they had furnished a reply as per record available in their office. He further submitted that the information is voluminous and needs clarification from the Appellant. Moreover, she said the information is legal & confidential in nature and can only be produced in the court of law on direction. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant, she said.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observers that the information sought is voluminous and large in nature. The Commission directs the CPIO to offer inspection of the Records/Documents, to the Appellant, pertaining to the RTI Application, at a mutually convenient date and time within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also directs the CPIO to depute a responsible officer Page 2 of 3 to assist the Appellant during the inspection and provide to him copies of selected documents to the Appellant as per the Rule 4 of the RTI Rules, 2012 strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act 2005.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 27.05.2022 Page 3 of 3