Central Information Commission
Dr Pradeep Kumar vs Cimfr, Dhanbad on 22 April, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CMRID/A/2023/614571
Dr Pradeep Kumar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, CIMFR, Dhanbad ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.04.2024
Date of Decision : 19.04.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.12.2022
PIO replied on : 16.01.2023
First Appeal filed on : 03.02.2023
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 20.03.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. Certified copy of Note sheet No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 & 11, regarding disbursement of Taxi Bills of Nitesh, Tours and Travels, at - Moha, Po- Ulwa, Tel- Panvel, Dist,- Raigad.- 410206. The claim relates hiring of taxi from the period 7-4- 2022 and onwards for the project site of Navi Mumbai Airport, undertaken by Blasting Division of CIMFR.
2. Certified copy of Letter of Acceptance cum work order No. CIDCO/CE(NIMA)/2020/846 dated 13.03.2020 issued by City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharshtra Limited to CIMFR. The document which is under the custody of Works and Service Section of CIMFR, Barwa Road, Dhanbad.
3. Certified copy of Office Memorandum No:- CSIR- CIMFR/GEN/NMB/(22)/177 dated 11/7/2022 issued by CIMFR, to trace the requirement of 2 vehicles at the project site of Navi Mumbai, the project undertaken by Blasting Division of CIMFR, Dhanbad.
4. Certified copy of Report dated 16.08.2022 submitted by the committee, constituted yid& Office Memorandum No:- CIMFR/GEN/NMB/(22)/177 dated 11/7/2022 of CIMFR. CSIR-
The CPIO, CIMFR, Dhanbad vide letter dated 16.01.2023 replied as under:-Page 1 of 3
"आपका दिनाांक 17/12/2022 के ऑनलाइन आवेिन के सांिर्भ में मुझे यह अवगत कराना है दक आपके आवेिन के वाांछित सूचना हे तू इस सांस्थान के सांबन्धित अछिकाररयों को र्ेजागयाथा।
इस सांिर्भ में सांबन्धित अछिकाररयों द्वारा जानकारी प्राप्त होते ही आपको सूछचत दकया जाएगा।"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.02.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant has filed a written submission dated 10.04.2024 contending that the Respondent vide letter dated 20.01.2023 denied disclosure of information invoking Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and also because "the project as such comes under the security and scientific interest of the State of Maharashtra as well as for sovereignty and integrity of India". The Appellant has thus stated that the Respondent did not act in a fair and judicious manner and did not give reply within the stipulated period.
A written submission dated 16.04.2024 has also been received from the Respondent which indicates that the First Appeal was decided vide order dated 24.02.2023 holding as under:
"...From the RTI application made it is prima-facially understood that all the documents requested by the applicant is available with him as it indicates the detail page numbers of Note Sheets, Work Order No.. OM No and date of report submitted by the committee constituted by competent authority Furthermore, the note sheets include internal comments made by concerned persons; Work order includes the commercial confidence and the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of CSIR-CIMFR. So, under clause 8(1)(d), the work order cannot be shared. Similarly, the OM No includes the names of the members constituted by competent authority and the report includes the findings of the committee. So, considering the clause No. 8(1) (g) RTI Act, 2005 where there will be every possibility to influence the committee members in their decision or even endanger the life or physical safety, the documents as requested cannot be shared. Furthermore, disclosure of the OM will restrict CSIR-CIMFR to form any such committees at later stages and rather no member of CSIR-CIMFR will become a committee member to give their opinion/comments. Again, the site involves strategic importance and may affect the sovereignty and integrity of India as because it pertains to Airport Regulatory Authority. So, under Clause 8(1) (a) of RTI Act, 2005, the information cannot be shared. Furthermore, requesting for the documents with every detail indicates fiduciary relationship with the institute. So, the information, as requested by your good self cannot be shared. However, still if you feel keen to know the status, you may personally take an appointment with Controller of Administration and review the documents Page 2 of 3 personally. During review no documents will be allowed for photo copy nor will any documents be shared to you.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar - CPIO and Dr. M P Roy - APIO were present through video conference during hearing.
Respondent present during hearing stated that interim response seeking additional time had been sent to the Appellant. The Respondent added that information had been sent to the Appellant, but no record in this regard has been submitted before the Commission so far. Time is granted to the Respondent to submit the records which they claim to have sent to the Appellant.
Decision:
Perusal of the records submitted by the Respondent indicates that the First Appellate Authority vide the detailed order dated 24.02.2023 had provided adequate reason to the Appellant for denial of information. The FAA's order is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act and found to be an appropriate response. The Respondent is directed to send a copy of the written submission dated 16.04.2024 with the complete set of annexures including the FAA's order dated 24.02.2023 to the Appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard within one week thereafter. No further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off with these directions.
Heeralal Samariya(हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)