Central Information Commission
Naba Kumar De vs Ministry Of Defence on 10 February, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/LS/C/2012/000451/SB
Dated: 09.02.2017
Complainant : Shri Naba Kumar De,
Class-VII, 5B,
Ordnance Estate,
Ambarnath, Distt: Thane-421502.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Ordnance Factory, Ambarnath,
Distt: Thane-421502.
Date of Hearing : 09.02.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI application filed on : 24.10.2011
CPIO' reply : 10.04.2012
First appeal filed on : 19.12.2011
FAA's Order : 09.02.2012
Complaint filed on : 05.03.2012
ORDER
1. Shri Naba Kumar De filed an application dated 24.10.2011under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),Ordnance Factory, Ambarnath, Thane seeking information on eleven points including (i)list of Bin Cards/LFs which were reinstated for further requirement of said items after deletion of those Bin Cards/LFs having Nil balance from stock item master from 01.03.2003 to 08.04.2003 vide letter No.OFA/MCO/4803/DEL dated 03.04.2003 bearing 5521 numbers in 329 pages which was issued to him vide letter No. OFA/VS/RTI/PIO/C-90/09-10 dated 31.12.2009 (ii) copy of D.O. letter No. 01/6/INV/MM/P&C (Vol.22) dated 10th May, 2010 and (iii) copy of M.T.P.F's letter No. 0965/GPF/GO/BG dated 09.09.2010 addressed to the G.M., OFA regarding discrepancy in his GPF Annual Statement (CC)-9) for the year 2009.
2. Shri Naba Kumar Defiled a complaint dated 05.03.2012 before the Commission on the grounds thathe has beenrefused access to the information sought by him.
Hearing:
3. The complainant Shri Naba Kumar De was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Hemant Pakhale, Assistant Work Manager and CPIO, Ordnance Factory, Ambarnath, Thane attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The respondent submitted that in compliance with the FAA's order dated 09.02.2012, the CPIO vide reply dated 10.04.2012 provided complete and point wise information, as per available records, to the complainant. Hence, no further information remains to be provided to the complainant.
Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that due information has been provided to the complainant by the respondent. The Commission further observes that since the information sought was provided to the complainant, it cannot be said that the information was malafidely withheld by the respondent. Hence, in absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the CPIO.
6. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer