Central Information Commission
Ashok Kumar vs National Textiles Corporation Ltd. on 14 September, 2018
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/NTCLD/A/2017/147359
Ashok Kumar
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO/Manager (F & A), National Textile Corporation
Ltd., Finance Division 7, Jawaharlal
Nehru Road, Kolkata - 700013. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 30.03.2017
CPIO reply : 10.04.2017
First Appeal : 20.04.2017
FAA Order : Not on record
Second Appeal : 06.07.2017
Date of hearing : 10.09.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 30.03.2017 sought information on four points as under;
1. Inspection of letter no. NTC/WBABO/PMD/17(49)/82/3024 dated 13.10.1982 and NTC/WBABO/PMD/17(49)/83/ Calcutta dated 08.06.1983 issued to Shri Dhruv Jyoti Das Gupta and copy of the despatch register.
2. Inspection of letter no. NTC/WBABO/PMD/Pers/78/1635 dated 22.04.78 and NTC/WBABO/PMD/5(136)/81/52 dated 05.01.81 issued to Shri Ashim Ghatak and copy of the despatch register.
3. Other related information.
The CPIO replied on 10.04.2017. The appellant was not satisfied with the CPIO's reply and filed first appeal on 20.04.2017. The First Appellate Authority Page 1 of 3 (FAA)'s order is not on record. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 06.07.2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri Tapan
Manager cum PIO,
National Textile Corporation Ltd.
During the hearing, the respondent PIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 10.04.2017. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that on point nos. 1 and 2 of the stated RTI application, the respondent PIO had claimed that relevant records are not available. The respondent PIO was directed to file an affidavit in this regard.
The reply on point no. 3 of the said RTI application was considered just and proper by the Commission.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that the sought for information on point no. 4 is a third party information exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and hence the same cannot be provided to the appellant.
The present respondent CPIO, is directed to submit an affidavit on point nos. 1 and 2 of the above stated RTI application, indicating the date of destruction / weeding out of the said records along with a copy of the order of the competent Page 2 of 3 authority authorising such destruction / weeding out within one month of the receipt of this order with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant within the same time period.
With the above observation/direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Amitava Bhattacharyya (अ मताभ भ टाचाय) Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु त ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कु मार तलपा ) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / [email protected] दनांक / Date Page 3 of 3