Central Information Commission
Mrr Sathiamoorthy vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 12 May, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/KY/C/2014/000085
Complainant : Shri Satya Narain Prakash Punj
10, Pritviraj Road, New Delhi-110001
Public Authority : The PIO
DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi-110023
Date of Hearing : 12.05.2015
Date of Decision : 12.05.2015
Presence:
Complainant : Shri P K Mehta, Authorized by the complainant
PIO : Absent
FACTS:
I. Vide RTI application dated 04.09.2013, the Complainant sought information on the issues. II. PIO, vide its response dated 22.10.2013, has not provided the information to the Complainant.
III. The First Appeal (FA) is not on record.
IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), Order is not on record. V. Grounds for the Complaint filed on 06.02.2014, are contained in the Memorandum of Complaint.
HEARING Complainant appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length. Respondent opted to be absent despite of our due notice to them.
DECISION
1. It would be seen here that the complainant, vide his RTI Application dated 04.09.2013, sought information from the respondents on the issues as contained therein. Respondents vide their response dated 22.10.2013, denied the required information to the complainant by stating that the information is consisting of 5 volumes. Each and every volume is having more than 300 pages towards correspondence side and approximately 100 pages towards noting side. Further, respondents also allow the complainant to have the inspection of the relevant records and pin point the required documents of which the photocopies are needed. However, complainant did not turn up to inspect the relevant records in respondent's office.
2. It is to be seen here that Section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005 empowers the CPIO/ APIO to deny the information to the complainant in case the disclosure thereof would disproportionately divert the resources of Public Authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.
.......2 -2-
3. In the present case, the nature of the issues as raised in the complainant's RTI Application is as such that to provide the information on those issues would definitely divert the resources of Public Authority disproportionately, and it would be detrimental to their safety and preservation thereof. Thus, it is certainly covered under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that most important criterion among the other criteria mentioned under Section 18(1) (a) to (e) of the RTI Act 2005, appears to be that complainant must be given incomplete, misleading and false information. However, the other criteria seems to be, refusal of access, not given response, charging unreasonable fee and even refusal of accepting the application for information etc. etc.
5. It is further stated here that, as per Section 18 (2) of the RTI Act 2005, in the complaint cases, it is mandatory on the part of Hon'ble Commission to be satisfied first that there are reasonable grounds for getting the matter inquired from the O/o respondents before proceeding under Section 18 read with 20 of the RTI Act 2005 and the main satisfaction of the Hon'ble Commission seems to be the fulfillment of either criteria as mentioned under Section 18(1) (a) to
(e) of the RTI Act 2005.
6. The Commission heard the submissions made by complainant at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the complainant in his RTI application dated 04.09.2013, respondent's response dated 22.10.2013 and also the contents of complaint.
7. In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commission feels, not satisfied, under section 18(2) of the RTI Act 2005, that there are reasonable grounds for getting the matter inquired simply because the complaint, under reference, miserably failed to qualify the criteria as mentioned under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act 2005. As such, the Commission is of the considered view that complainant's complaint devoids of merit and deserves to be dismissed forthwith. Therefore, it is hereby dismissed.
The complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar The PIO DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi-110023 Shri Satya Narain Prakash Punj 10, Pritviraj Road, New Delhi-110001