Central Information Commission
Mrniranjan Saha vs Cbec on 6 June, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003487
Appellant : Shri Niranjan Saha
Retd. Scientist, Govt. of India
Qtr. No. 15, Type-V, MAMC,
New Delhi-110002
Public Authority : The CPIO
Central Excise, Kolkata-I Commissionerate,
Central Excise Building, 180 Shantipally,
Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata-700107
Date of Hearing : 06.06.2014
Date of Decision : 06.06.2014
Presence:
Appellant : Sh. Niranjan Saha
CPIO : Sh. R K Singh, CPIO & Deputy Commissioner
FACTS:
1. Vide RTI application dated 04.01.2012, 27.01.2012, 16.02.2012 the appellant sought information on the issues. Copy of the RTI application is not on record.
2. CPIO, vide its response dated 20.03.2012, allegedly not provided the information to the appellant. Copy of the reply is not on record.
3. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 06.08.2012, as the desired information was not provided. Copy of the first appeal is not on record.
4. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide its order dated 11.09.2012, upheld the decision of CPIO.
5. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 05.10.2012, are contained in the Memorandum of Appeal.
6. HEARING Respondents as well as appellant appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 04.1.2012, 27.01.2012, 16.02.2012, sought information from the respondents on the issues as contained therein. Respondents vide their response dated 20.03.2012, denied the required information to the appellant in respect of his RTI application dated 16.02.2012, by stating that the information sought by you in your application seems to be grievance and does not qualify to be an information in terms of RTI Act 2005.
2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 06.08.2012, in respect of all three application dated 04.01.2012, 27.01.2012, 16.02.2012, before the FAA, who vide his common order dated 26.04.2012, disposed the FA as under:
"I find from the above discussion that what the appellant has sought for in the original application as well as in the appeal application do not actually qualify to be an information under the RTIAct, rather a request for redressal of grievance the appellant is well aware that the RTI Act is not the right arena for redressal of one's grievances. In the case of Rajan Bahati vs. Dept of Training and technical education (DTTE), Delhi appn No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00186 dated 02.06.2006 the CIC held that any grievance is not information. however so far as the merit of the case is concerned, I find that the CPIO has discreetly studied and analyzed that contents of the original application and thereafter, has come to his decision which has duly been communicated to the appellant. So I do not find any reason to intrude into his decision. I also agree with the CPIO on this point."
3. The Commission heard the submissions made by appellant as well as respondents at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; especificaly, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 27.06.2012, respondent's response dated 27.07.2012, FAA's order dated 26.04.2012and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
4. The Commission is of the considered view that there is no legal flaw in FAA's order. Therefore, FAA's order dated 26.04.2012 is hereby upheld being legally tenable. In view of this, the appellant's second appeal deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, it is dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi)
Information Commissioner
Copy of this Decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Authenticated true copy (K. L. Das) Deputy Registrar
1. The CPIO Central Excise, Kolkata-I Commissionerate, Central Excise Building, 180 Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata-700107
2. Shri NiranjanSaha Retd. Scientist, Govt. of India Qtr. No. 15, Type-V, MAMC, New Delhi-110002