Central Information Commission
Anoop Kumar Gupta vs Airports Authority Of India. on 25 July, 2008
Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No. 2914/IC(A)/2008
F. No. CIC/MA/A/2008/00765
Dated, the 25thJuly, 2008
Name of the Appellant : Anoop Kumar Gupta
Name of the Public Authority : Airports Authority of India.
Facts:
1. Both the parties were heard on 24.07.2008.
2. The appellant, an employee of the respondent, has sought for information relating to the sanctioned/actual number of posts at different levels and categories at various locations. He has alleged that the order of the Appellant Authority has not been fully complied with. As a result, a part of the information asked for have not been furnished to him.
3. The CPIO stated that the information asked for are voluminous, which have to be complied from a large number of offices located in different parts of the country. While some information have been complied and furnished to the appellant, the remaining information is yet to be collected. He assured that the required information would be furnished soon after they are obtained from the concerned departments.
Decision:
4. Both the parties have erred. The appellant being an employee of the respondent should have made attempts to obtain the required information by way of making an effective use of existing internal channels of communication. It is not clear whether he has sought for information for promotion of personal interest or for official purpose. As there is always certain cost of providing information, the CPIO is directed to seek an explanation from the appellant as to what good use he would make after the information is furnished to him.
5. If he has asked for information for promotion of personal interest, as a public servant he should explain as to why the cost of providing the information should not be recovered from him. An action taken report should be furnished within one month from the date of issue of this decision.
6. A CPIO is expected to provide the information on the basis of the available records in his office. He is not expected to collect and compile the information from various offices located through out the country. The CPIO should have either 1 transferred the application for information u/s 6(3) of the Act or advised the appellant to approach the concerned CPIO, who might be the custodian of information. Had he done so, the information could have been furnished by now and this appeal could have been avoided. He is directed to act accordingly in the future.
7. The appeal is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma) 1 Assistant Registrar Name and address of parties:
1. Mr. Anoop Kumar Gupta, 452, DDA SFS Flats, Pocket - I, Sector - 9, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075.
2. Mr. T.Premnath, GM (PR) & PIO, Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi - 110003. (Ref:No. PIO/658/2007/1761 dated 12.07.2007).2
If you don't ask, you don't get - Mahatma Gandhi All men by nature desire to know - Aristotle 2