Central Information Commission
Praveen Singh vs Department Of Animal Husbandry, ... on 2 January, 2023
CIC/DOAHD/A/2021/132543
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/DOAHD/A/2021/132543
In the matter of:
Praveen Singh ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
National Diary Development
Board, PB No. 40,
Anand - 388001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 23.04.2021
CPIO replied on : 23.05.2021
First Appeal filed on : 29.05.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 22.06.2021
Second Appeal received on : 13.08.2021
Date of Hearing : 29.12.2022
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Praveen Singh, participated in the hearing in person.
Respondent: Shri Chandaka TVS Murthy, GM (Legal)/ National Diary
Development Board, on behalf of CPIO, from NIC Anand, participated in
the hearing through video conferencing from NIC Anand.
Page 1 of 5
CIC/DOAHD/A/2021/132543
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 23.04.2021 seeking information on the following ten points:
1) "How many projects did IDMC got from PCDF UTTAR PRADESH and in which year?
2) How much PO valuewas for every project ?
3) Was there any revisions in PO Value and how much effected after GST?
4) What was the initial time period given by PCDF for completion of the projects?
5) Is there any time deviation in handing over of projects ? How many projects are handed over?
6) Reasons for delaying in handing over if there is any ?
7) Was there any LD clause in agreement with PCDF ?
8) Is there any LD clause agreement between IDMC and vendors? If yes, what were the conditions with which vendor?
9) Was there any defect liability period clause with PCDF ? What was the clause?
10) What are the actual expenses incurred in freight and packaging in each PCDF project with details?"
The CPIO vide online reply dated 23.05.2021, informed to the Appellant as under:
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.05.2021. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.06.2021, informed as under:Page 2 of 5
CIC/DOAHD/A/2021/132543 Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that he has not received the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application from the Respondent.
The Respondent submitted that the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to IDMC which is private body. He further added that IDMC is a subsidiary of National Diary Development Board and disclosure of such sort of information would harm its competitive position and that is why they have denied the disclosure of information under Section 8 (1) (d) & (e) of the RTI Act.Page 3 of 5
CIC/DOAHD/A/2021/132543 Upon being quizzed by the Commission, whether NDDB can access the relevant information from IDMC, the Respondent replied in affirmative. The Commission interjected and remarked the Respondent that if IDMC is a subsidiary of NDDB, then as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, NDDB can access information relating to any private body. The Respondent concurred with the remarks of the Commission.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that no doubt point no. 5 to 10 of the RTI Application are clarificatory in nature and the same is beyond the ambit of information as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, but a blanket denial of information under the garb of Section 8 (1) (d) & (e) of the RTI Act is not appropriate. Hence, the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent to furnish a revised reply by providing the relevant information sought by the Appellant in point no. 1 to 4 of the RTI Application, with a copy marked to the Commission, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमतापांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 02.01.2023 Page 4 of 5 CIC/DOAHD/A/2021/132543 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) National Diary Development Board, PB No. 40, Anand- 388001
2. The Central Public Information Officer National Diary Development Board, PB No. 40, Anand - 388001
3. Mr. Praveen Singh Page 5 of 5