Central Information Commission
Ramesh Kumar Raahi vs Csir-Nml,Jamshedpur on 25 January, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/CSIRJ/A/2022/103290
In the matter of
Ramesh Kumar Rahi
... Appellant
VS
The CPIO
Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR),
Barwa Road, Dhanbad- 826015, Jharkhand.
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 14/09/2021 CPIO replied on : 12/10/2021 First appeal filed on : 20/10/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 25/11/2021 Second Appeal Filed on : 15/01/2022 Date of Hearing : 25/01/2023 Date of Decision : 25/01/2023 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Dr Rakesh Kumar Rahi, Senior Principal Scientist and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information pertaining to the guest house of CIMFR located at Barwa Road, Dhanbad:
1. Provide name and designation, dates of stay, charges recovered, in respect of the officials who have stayed in the guest house since Jan. 2016.
2. Provide details of the officials who recommended for the booking of the guest house.1
3. Provide details of expenses incurred on the maintenance of the guest house since Jan.2016.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant pressed for complete information on all the points. The CPIO reiterated the reply provided on 12.10.2021.
Observations:
It was noted that the CPIO gave a reply on two points, in point no. 1 the information sought was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In respect of point no.
2 it was stated that information sought is not clear. It is relevant to mention here that the FAA vide order dated 25.11.2021 disposed of the first appeal and held that the disclosure of the names of the visitors staying in the guest house since 2016 would prejudicially affect the security, strategic, scientific and economic interests of the Institute. Furthermore, it relates to personal information and the disclosure of the same has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The disclosure of the same shall also affect the competitive position of the Institute as well as third party. In respect of the third query he stated that it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. Hence, if the appellant is interested he can visit CSIR-CIMFR with prior appointment with the administrative officer. He shall have to pay charges for viewing such documents as per the RTI Rules. The Commission observed that the details of expenses incurred on the maintenance of the guest house since Jan.2016 is disclosable and the appellant was rightly offered inspection. Be that as it may, information on points no.1 and 2 cannot be given being related to third party and personal in nature. At this juncture a categorical reply on point no. 3 shall serve the purpose of information disclosure and rather than calling the appellant for inspection, the information which is not voluminous can be culled out from the records and provided to the appellant.
2Decision:
In view of the above observations, the CPIO is directed to send a revised reply on point no. 3 as discussed above, and details of the expenses incurred year- wise should be provided to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3