Central Information Commission
Shri Kiran Kumar Pandey vs Cantt Board, Firozpur on 22 October, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
(1) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000169/LS
(2) File No. CIC/SM/C/2009/000208/LS
(3) File No. CIC/SM/C/2009/000209/LS
(4) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000270/LS
(5) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000271/LS
(6) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000272/LS
(7) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000301/LS
(8) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000303/LS
(9) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000305/LS
(10) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000306/LS
(11) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000307/LS
(12) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000308/LS
(13) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000310/LS
(14) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000313/LS
(15) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000315/LS
(16) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000317/LS
(17) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000318/LS
(18) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000319/LS
(19) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000320/LS
(20) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000321/LS
(21) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000322/LS
(22) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000323/LS
(23) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000324/LS
(24) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000326/LS
(25) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000328/LS
(26) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000329/LS
(27) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000333/LS
(28) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000335/LS
(29) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000337/LS
(30) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000339/LS
(31) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000340/LS
(32) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000341/LS
(33) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000342/LS
(34) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000345/LS
(35) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000346/LS
(36) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000348/LS
(37) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000350/LS
(38) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000352/LS
(39) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000353/LS
(40) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000354/LS
(41) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000431/LS
Appellant : Shri Kiran Kumar Pandey
Public Authority : CAntt Board, Firozpur
(through Shri P.K. Sharma, Cantt. Legal
Advisor & Shri Onkar Nath Sharma, Supdt.
(CPIO))
Date of Hearing : 22.10.2009
Date of Decision : 22.10.2009
FACTS :
The appellant has filed the above cited 41 appeals before this Commission relating to the affairs of the Cantt. Board. These appeals are fixed up for hearing today dated 22.10.2009. The appellant is present. The public authority is represented by the officers named above. As all these matters relate to Cantt. Board, Firozpur, it had been decided to dispose them through a common order. The appeal-wise order is passed as per the paragraphs that follow :-
(1) File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000169/LS 2 By RTI application dated 20.8.2008, the appellant had requested for
information regarding the purchase of electrical goods by the Cantt. Board in the year 2006-07 valued at Rs. 3.37 laksh etc. The CPIO had refused to disclose this information. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 29.8.2008 declining to disclose any information on the ground that that appellant had not specified the head of sanitation.
3 During the hearing, the appellant would submit that he had sought information regarding the purchase of electrical goods and, therefore, he was not required to specify the head of sanitation. The plea of the appellant appears to be correct. There appears to have been total non- application of mind on the part of CPIO which is not approved of.
DECISION 4 Be that as it may, the requisite information may now be provided to the appellant, in 06 weeks time, free of cost.
(2) Complaint No.CIC/SM/C/2009/000208/LS 5 Vide RTI application dated 29.8.2008, the appellant had sought photocopies of the Measurement Book for 2008. When queried as to why no information was provided to the appellant, Shri P.K. Sharma would submit that the appellant had not produced proof of deposition of fee of Rs. 10/-.
6 Be that as it may, in exercise of its plenary powers, the requirement of fee is waived off. The appellant scales down his requirement for information to Ward Nos. I, II & VI, for the period January, 2008 to August, 2009.
DECISION 7 The CPIO is hereby directed to provide the above information to the appellant.
(3) Complaint No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000209
8. Vide his RTI application dated 25.8.208, the appellant had sought information regarding the number of indoor patients, number of outdoor patients, number of delivery cases in the Cantt. Hospital during the period 1995-96 to 2007-08.
9. The CPIO had supplied part information through an undated letter which is available on record. During the hearing, the appellant would submit that complete information has not been supplied. The contention of the appellant is correct.
DECISION
10. The remaining information may be supplied.
(4) Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000270/LS
11. By his letter of 29.8.2008, the appellant had requested for the details of the assets submitted by Shri Satish Kumar Arora, Junior Engineer, to the Board at the time of recruitment. To this, CPIO had responded vide letter dated 27.10.2008 that the Board had never insisted on its employees to submit details of their assets etc. DECISION
12. The information sought by the appellant is exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
(5) Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000271/LS
13. By his RTI application dated 25.8.2008, the appellant had sought information on three paras viz. total number of leases, number of expired leases, details of expired leases etc.
14. The CPIO had provided information on two paras vide letter dated 30.10.2008 but had not provided information about the names of lessees whose leases had expired.
DECISION
15. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide this information.
(6) Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000272/LS
16. By his letter of 25.8.2008, the appellant had requested for information on three paras relating to the hiring of private manpower through contracting agency Har Bhajan Singh Kharbanda during the years 2006-07.
17. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 27.10.2008 but had not disclosed the requisite information.
DECISION
18. The CPIO is hereby directed to allow inspection of the relevant records by the appellant and to provide him copies of documents as requested by him, free of cost.
(7) Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000301/LS
19. By his RTI application dated 17.11.2008, the appellant had sought information on four paras relating to the educational institutions being managed by the Cantt. Board and the matters related therewith. 20 The CPIO had refused to disclose information on the ground that fee of Rs. 10/- had not been deposited vide his letter dated 14.11.2008.
21. The Appellate Authority had also upheld the decision of CPIO.
22. During the hearing, the appellant draws Commission's attention to the receipt in token of fee having been deposited by him. I find merit in the appellant's plea.
DECISION
23. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide para-wise information to the appellant.
(8) Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000303/LS
24. By his letter of 30.10.2008, the appellant had sought information on five paras relating to the recruitment of Junior Engineers in the Cantt. Board.
25. The CPIO had refused to disclose this information vide his letter dated 14.11.2008 on the ground that the requisite fee had not been deposited.
26. The Appellate Authority had affirmed the decision of CPIO vide order dated 4.12.2008.
27. However, during the hearing, the appellant draws Commission's attention to the receipt issued by the Board which is available in file. It, thus, appears to me that information has been unfairly denied.
DECISION
28. Hence, the CPIO is hereby directed to provide requisite information, free of cost.
(9) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000305/LS
29. By his letter of 10.11.2008, the appellant had sought information regarding expenditure incurred by the Cantt. Board on printing of stationary etc. from 1995-96 to 2007-08.
30. Shri Satish Kumar, JE(CPIO), vide letter dated 14.11.2008 had refused to disclose information on the ground that the requisite fee have not been deposited.
31. The Appellate Authority had also upheld the decision of CPIO vide order dated 4.12.2008.
32. However, during the hearing, the appellant draws the Commission's attention to the receipt issued by the Board in token of fee having been deposited. The plea of the appellant appears to be correct. It, thus, appears to me that information has been unfairly denied by the CPIO. However, during the hearing, the appellant scales down his requirement from 2005- 06 to 2007-08 only.
DECISION
33. In view of the above, the CPIO is hereby directed to provide this information to the appellant for the period 2005-06 to 2007-08 only.
34. Before parting with the matter, I would like to observe that it is a clear case of willful denial of information. Hence, notice may be issued to Shri Satish Kumar, JE(CPIO) to show cause why penalty of Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed on him. The notice is returnable in 06 weeks time. The matter will come up for hearing on 7.12.2009 at 1050 hrs. (10) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000306/LS
35. Vide RTI application dated nil, the appellant had sought information as to whether Cantt. Board, Firozpur, was following the laws/policies of the Govt. of Punjab or that of the Central Govt.
36. Shri Satish Kumar, JE(CPIO), vide letter dated 14/11/2008 had not disclosed any information and asked the appellant to re-submit application along with proper receipt of Rs. 10/-
37. The Appellate Authority had upheld the decision of CPIO vide dated 04/12/2008.
38. During the hearing, the appellant would draw Commission's attention to the receipt issued by the Board in token of the fee having been deposited. In this view of the matter, it appears to me that the information has been wrongly denied to the appellant.
DECISION
39. The CPIO is directed to provide requested information to the appellant.
40. Notice may be issued to Shri. Satish Kumar, JE(CPIO) to show cause why penalty of Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed on him for unjustifiably denying information to the appellant. The notice is returnable in 06 weeks time. The matter will come up for hearing on 7.12.2009 at 1050 hrs (11) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000307/LS
41. By his letter of 10/11/2008, the appellant had sought information regarding encroachment on the Govt. land. Shri. Satish Kumar, JE(CPIO) had refused to disclose information vide letter dated 14/11/2008 asking the appellant to re-submit the application along with proper receipt of Rs. 10/-
42. During the hearing, the appellant would draw the Commission's attention to the receipt dated 10/11/2008 available in the file. It, thus, appears to me that the information has been wrongly denied to the appellant.
DECISION
43. The CPIO is herby directed to supply the requisite information to the appellant.
(12) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000308/LS
44. By his letter of 08/10/2008, the appellant had sought information regarding the expenditure incurred by the Cantt. Board on the purchase of sanitary items and the identity of the suppliers etc. for the financial year 2007-08.
45. Shri Satish Kumar, JE (CPIO) had refused to disclose information vide letter dated 14.11.2008 asking the appellant to re-submit the application along with proper recipt of Rs. 10/-. However, during the hearing it is noticed that the receipt dated 8.10.2008 is available on the file. It is, thus, not clear to the Commission as to what did CPIO mean by 'proper receipt.' DECISION
46. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide requested information to the appellant.
(13) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000310/LS
47. By his letter of 30.10.2008, the appellant had sought information about the urinals in the Cantt. Area and the expenditure incurred on the maintenance of the public urinals from 1995-96 to 2007-08.
48. Shri Satish Kumar, JE(CPIO) had refused to disclose information vide letter dated 14.11.2008 on the ground that proper receipt in token of deposition of fee had not been submitted by the appellant. It is, however, noticed that the receipt dated 30.10.2008 is available in the file. During the hearing, the appellant scales down his requirement of information from 2005-06 to 2007-08.
DECISION
49. It appears to me that the information has been unfairly denied. Hence, CPIO is directed to provide the requested information.
(14) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000313/LS
50. By his letter dated nil, the appellant had sought information on five paras regarding gas plant installed in Chetna Hall Complex, Gowal Mandi, Firozpur etc.
51. Shri Satish Kumar, JE (CPIO) had refused to disclose information vide letter dated 14.11.2008 on the ground as mentioned in the previous case. The receipt dated 10.11.2008, however, is available in the Commission's file. It, thus, appears to me that the information has been unfairly denied to the appellant.
DECISION
52. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide requested information to the appellant.
(15) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000315/LS 53 By his letter dated nil, the appellant had sought information about the location of the installation of sodium vapour lamps etc.
54. Shri Satish Kumar, JE(CPIO) had refused to disclose information vide letter dated 14.11.2008 on the same ground as mentioned in the previous case.
55. During the hearing, it is brought to my notice that the cost of a sodium vapour lamp is about Rs. 500/- and about 300 to 400 lamps have been installed in the Cantt. Area. I am constrained to observe that to provide information about the location of these lamps is likely to result in disproportionate divergence of the resources of the Cantt. Board.
DECISION
56. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.
(16) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000317/LS
57. By his letter dated nil, the appellant had sought information about the expenditure made on the maintenance of staff quarters of CBF employees from 1995-96 to 2007-08
58. Shri Satish Kumar, JE(CPIO) had refused to disclose information vide letter dated 14.11.2008 on the ground that appellant had not submitted the proper receipt. It is, however, noticed that receipt dated 10.11.2008 is available in the file. It, thus, appears to me that the information has been malafidely denied to the appellant. However, during the hearing, the appellant scales down his requirement of information from 2005-06 onwards.
DECISION
59. The CPIO is hereby direct to provide this information to the appellant.
(17) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000318/LS
60. Vide his RTI application dated nil, the appellant had sought information about the installation of tube-lights in the Cantt. Board area. As he was denied this information, he has filed the present appeal. However, during the hearing, he withdraws the appeal which is permitted.
DECISION
61. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
(18) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000319/LS
62. By his letter of 30.10.2008, the appellant had sought details of supply orders issued by the Cantt. Board from January 1, 2008 to October 15, 2008.
63. Shri Satish Kumar, JE(CPIO) had refused to disclose any information vide letter dated 14.11.2008 on the ground that appellant had not submitted a proper receipt. It is, however, noticed that the receipt dated 30.10.2008 is available in the record. It, thus, appears that the information has been wrongly denied to the appellant.
DECISION
64. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide requested information to the appellant.
(19) Apeal no. CIC/SM/A/2009/000320/LS
65. Vide letter dated 10.11.2008, the appellant had requested for a copy of the Govt. of India letter No. 744/6/L/DG/94II(C) dated 16/3/1995 and another letter dated 12/09/2007.
66. Shri Satish Kumar, JE (CPIO) had refused to provide copies of the aforesaid letters on the same ground as in the previous case.
67. During the hearing, it is noticed that receipt dated 10/11/2008 is available in the file. Hence, it appears that the information has been wrongly denied to the appellant.
DECISION
68. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide the requisite information to the appellant.
(20) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000321/LS
69. By his letter of 30/10/2008, the appellant had sought information about the arrangement made by the Cantt. Board for keeping the stray animals caught from the public places.
70. Vide letter dated 14/11/2008, Shri Satish Kumar, CPIO had refused to disclosed any information on the ground mentioned in the previous case.
71. During the hearing, however, it is noticed that the receipt dated 30/10/2008 is available on the file. It, thus, appears to me that the information has been wrongly denied.
DECISION
72. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide the requisite information to the appellant.
(21) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000322/LS
73. By his letter of 30/10/2008, the appellant had sought information about the identity of 276 indoor patients treated in the Cantt. Board Hospital during 2006-07 as also the name of the diseases they were suffering from, date of their admission, date of their discharge, total expenditure incurred in their treatment and the medicines administered to them etc.
74. Vide letter dated 14/11/2008, Shri Satish Kumar, CPIO had refused to disclose information on the same ground as mentioned in the previous case.
75. During the hearing it is, however, noticed that receipt dated 30/10/2008 is available in the file. It thus, appears to me that the information could not be denied on this ground.
76. However, it is to be noted that the appellant has sought the names of the patients, the diseases they are suffering from, dates of their admission, dates of their discharge and the medicines administered to them. The appellant pleads that this information is not personal information and, therefore, is disclosable to him. I, however, hold the contrary view. In my opinion, this information, is third party information which is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the information relating to the total expenditure incurred on the treatment of patients cannot be said to be personal information as the funds have been spent from the public exchequer.
DECISION
77. In view of the above, the CPIO is hereby directed to disclosed the information about the money spent on the treatment of patients for the year 2006-07.
(22) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000323/LS
78. By his letter dated nil, the appellant had sought information regarding the recruitment of Dr. Bharat Bhusun as Medical Officer by the Cantt. Board.
79. Vide letter dated 14/11/2008, Shri Satish Kumar, CPIO had refused to disclose information on the ground mentioned in the preceding case.
80. During the hearing it is, however, noticed that receipt dated 10/10/2008 is available in the file. Hence, it appears to me that the information has been wrongly denied to the appellant.
DECISION
81. In view of the above, the CPIO is hereby directed to provide information to the appellant.
(23) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000324/LS
82. Vide RTI application dated 10/11/2008, the appellant had sought copies of the log books etc. but he was denied this information. However, during the hearing, he wishes to withdraw the appeal.
DECISION
83. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
(24) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000326/LS
84. By his letter of 30/10/2008, the appellant had requested for information about the last appointments made by the Cantt. Board and the identification of such posts.
85. Shri Satish Kumar, JE(CPIO) had refused to disclose this information vide letter dated 14/11/2008 on the ground that the appellant had not submitted the proper receipt of fee. However, during the hearing, it is noticed that the receipt dated 30/10/2008 is available on record. It, thus, appears to me that the information has been wrongly denied to the appellant.
DECISION
86. The CPIO is hereby directed to disclose this information to the appellant.
(25) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000328/LS
87. Vide RTI application dated 30/10/2008, the appellant had sought information about the total expenditure made on the re-carpeting of the roads in the Cantt. area and the identity of the contracting agency for the period 1995-96 to 2007-08.
88. Vide letter dated 14/11/2008, Shri Satish Kumar, CPIO had refused to disclose information on the same ground as mentioned in the preceding case.
89. During the hearing it is, however, noticed that receipt of fee dated 10/10/2008 is available on record. Hence, the decision of the CPIO is not sustainable in Law.
DECISION
90. The CPIO is hereby directed to disclose information limited to the period 2005-06 to 2007-08 only.
(26) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000329/LS
91. Vide RTI application dated Nil the appellant had sought information about the names and addresses of patients in respect of whom certain medical tests were conducted etc. However, during the hearing, he wishes to withdraw the appeal.
DECISION
92. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
(27) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000333/LS
93. Vide RTI application dated 10/11/2008, the appellant had sought information about the money spent on advertisements given by Cannt. Board through various modes i.e. newspapers, pamphlets, sign boards for the years 1995-96 to 2007-08.
94. Vide letter dated 14/11/2008, Shri Satish Kumar, CPIO had refused to disclose this information on the same ground as mentioned in the previous case.
95. During the hearing it is, however, noticed that receipt of fee is duly available in the file. It, thus, appears to me that the information has been wrongly denied. However, during the hearing, the appellant scales down his requirement to the two years i.e. 2006-07 and 2007-08.
DECISION
96. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide this information to the appellant.
(28) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000335/LS
97. Vide his RTI application dated nil, the appellant had sought information about the recruitment of Varinder Kumar, Pharmacist in the CGH.
98. Vide letter dated 14/11/2008, Shri Satish Kumar, CPIO had refused to disclose information on the same ground as mentioned in the previous case.
99. During the hearing, it is, however, noticed that receipt of fee is duly available in the file. It, thus, appears to me that the information has been wrongly denied.
DECISION
100. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide this information to the appellant.
(30) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000337/LS
101. By his letter of 30/10/2008, the appellant had sought information on the expenditure made on the maintenance of public water stand posts and the exact location thereof for the period 1995-96 to 2007-08.
102. Vide letter dated 14/11/2008, Shri Satish Kumar, CPIO had refused to disclose this information on the same ground as mentioned in the previous case.
103. During the hearing, it is, however, noticed that receipt of fee is duly available in the record. It, thus, appears to me that the information has been wrongly denied. During the hearing, the appellant, however, scales down his requirement to two years viz. 2006-07 and 2007-08.
DECISION
104. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide this information to the appellant.
(31) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000339/LS
105. During the hearing the appellant wishes to withdraw the appeal.
DECISION
106. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
(32) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000340/LS
107. By his letter of 13/10/2008, the appellant had sought information about the quantity of medicines purchased by the General Hospital, Cantt. Board, and the date of expiry thereof. This RTI application runs into six full scape pages. The information sought is for the year 2006.
108. Vide letter dated 14/11/2008, Shri Satish Kumar, CIPO had refused to disclose information on the same ground as mentioned in the previous case.
109. During the hearing, it is, however, noticed that receipt of fee is duly available in the record. It, thus, appears to me that the information has been wrongly denied. The ground taken by the CPIO is not legally sustainable. Hence, his order is set aside.
DECISION
110. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide information in the Proforma provided by the appellant, subject to the availability of information.
(33) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000341/LS
111. Vide his RTI application dated nil, the appellant had sought information about the recruitment of Ajmer Singh, Compounder, in CHS.
112. Vide letter dated 14/11/2008, Shri Satish Kumar, CPIO had refused to disclose information on the same ground as mentioned in the previous case.
113. During the hearing, it is, however, noticed that receipt of fee is duly available in the record. It, thus, appears to me that the information has been wrongly denied. The ground taken by the CPIO is not legally sustainable. Hence, his order is set aside.
DECISION
114. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide this information to the appellant.
(34) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000342/LS
115. Vide his RTI application dated nil the appellant had wanted to know as to who was the Doctor in the General Hospital before the recruitment of Dr. Promila Markan in the year in which the X-Ray Machine was installed in the Hospital.
116. Vide letter dated 14/11/2008, Shri Satihs Kumar, CPIO had refused to disclose this information on the same ground as mentioned in the previous case.
117. During the hearing, it is, however, noticed that receipt of fee is duly available in the record. It, thus, appears to me that the information has been wrongly denied. The ground taken by the CIPO is legally sustainable. Hence, his order is set aside.
DECISION
118. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide this information to the appellant.
(35) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000345/LS (36) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000346/LS
119. In his letter of 08/10/2008, the appellant had mentioned that Cantt. Board had spent about Rs. 4.00 crores in 2005-06 and 2006-07 on the purchase of items meant for sanitation. He had sought information in the proforma given by him.
120. Vide letter dated 14/11/2008, Shri Satish Kumar, CPIO had refused to disclose information on the same ground as mentioned in the previous case.
121. During the hearing, it is, however, noticed that receipt of fee is duly available in the record. It, thus, appear to me that the information has been wrongly denied. The ground taken by the CIPO is not legally sustainable. Hence, his order is set aside.
DECISION
122. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide this information to the appellant.
(37) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000348/LS
123. By his letter dated nil, the appellant had sought information on four paras regarding the recruitment of Dr. Promila Markan.
124. Vide letter dated 14/11/2008, Shri Satish Kuamr, CPIO had refused to disclose information on the same ground as mentioned in the previous case.
125. During the hearing, it is, however, noticed that receipt of fee is duly available in the record. It, thus, appears to me that the information has been wrongly denied. The ground taken by the CIPO is not legally sustainable. Hence, his order is set aside as the requisite fee appears to have been deposited by the appellant at the relevant time.
DECISION
126. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide this information to the appellant.
(38) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000350/LS
127. In his letter of 10/11/2008, the appellant had mentioned that Cantt. Board had spent Rs. 3.88 lakhs on the white-wash/painting of the Cantt building. In this connection, he had sought information about the buildings which were white-washed/painted etc.
128. Vide letter dated 14/11/2008, Shri Satish Kumar, CPIO had refused to disclose information on the same ground as mentioned in the previous case.
129. During the hearing, it is, however, noticed that receipt of fee is duly available in the record. The appellant would submit that he will be satisfied if the information is provided to him only about the staff quarters. The order of the CPIO is set aside.
DECISION.
130. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide information about the staff quarters only.
(39) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000352/LS
131. By his letter dated nil, the appellant had requested for photocopies of certain supply order etc.
132. Vide letter dated 14/11/2008, Shri Satish Kumar, CPIO had refused to disclose information on the same ground as mentioned in the previous case.
133. During the hearing, it is, however, noticed that receipt of fee is duly available in the record. It, thus, appears to me that the information has been wrongly denied. The ground taken by the CPIO is not legally sustainable. Hence, his order is set aside.
DECISION
134. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide this information to the appellant.
(40) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000353/LS
135. Vide his letter dated 10/11/2008, the appellant had sought information about the amount spent on the purchase of stationery items from the years 1995-96 to 2007-08.
136. Vide letter dated 14/11/2008, Shri Satish Kumar, CPIO had refused to disclose information on the same ground as mentioned in the previous case.
137. During the hearing, it is, however, noticed that receipt of fee is duly available in the record. It, thus, appears to me that the information has been wrongly denied. The ground taken by the CPIO is not legally sustainable. Hence, his order is set aside.
DECISION
138. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide the requisite information to the appellant only for two years viz. 2006-07 and 2007-08.
(27) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000354/LS
139. During the hearing, the appellant wishes to withdraw the appeal.
DECISION
140. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
(41) Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000431/LS
140. Vide his letter dated 10/11/2008, the appellant had requested for the inspection of history sheets of different vehicles of the Board. Besides, he had also wished to inspect the installation of merry-go-round in the Gandhi Garden.
141. Vide letter dated 14/11/2008, Shri Satish Kumar, CPIO had refused to disclose information on the same ground as mentioned in the previous case.
142. During the hearing, it is, however, noticed that receipt of fee is duly available in the record. It, thus, appears to me that the information has been wrongly denied. The ground taken by the CPIO is not legally sustainable. Hence, his order is set aside.
DECISION
143. The CPIO is hereby directed to give inspection of the history-sheets of the vehicles and that of merry-go-round in Gandhi Gardens to the appellant.
General observations
144. Before I part with the matter, I would like to bring on record that Shri Satish Kumar, Junior Engineer, the then CPIO, appears to have prepared standard response dated 14/11/2008 to most of the RTI applications filed by the appellant. It is astonishing to note that he has taken the same ground in all his responses while refusing to disclose information to the appellant. This ground has been referred to in the preceding paras but it will be apt to excerpt it here-below:-
"You are hereby required to re-submit application along with proper receipt of Rs. 10/- for taking necessary action."
In none of his responses, Shri Satish Kumar has bothered to explain as to what does he mean by proper receipt of Rs. 10/-. Prima facie, it appears to me that it has caused detriment to the appellant. I would like to add that Shri A. Shekhar Babu, IDES, who was the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantt. Board and the Appellate Authority had dittoed the order of the CPIO, seemingly, without application of mind. The result is that this Commission has virtually been reduced to the status of CPIO in dealing with the above mentioned appeals. I would also like to observe that the RTI act is a people-friendly law and it needs to be implemented with a people-friendly spirit. The CPIO has a special responsibility in this regard.
145. The aforesaid appeals are disposed of as ordered here in above. The show cause notices may be issued to the then CPIO as directed in paras 34 and 40 of this order.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das) Assistant Registrar Address of parties :-
1. Shri Onkar Nath Sharma Supdt. (CPIO), Cantt. Board, Ferozpur, Punjab.
2. Shri Kiran Kumar Pandey H.No. 346, Gowal Mandi, Ferozepur Cantt. Punjab-152001