Central Information Commission
Vijay Nijhawan vs Competition Commission Of India on 21 July, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/CPCOI/A/2021/132172
In the matter of
Vijay Nijhawan
... Appellant
VS
CPIO
Competition Commission of India,
10th Floor, Plate B, Office Block-1,
Tower-1, Kidwai Nagar East, New Delhi - 110023
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 10/04/2021 CPIO replied on : 25/05/2021 First appeal filed on : 07/06/2021 First Appellate Authority order : 15/07/2021 Second Appeal filed on : 22/07/2021 Date of Hearing : 20/07/2022 Date of Decision : 20/07/2022 The following were present:
Appellant : Present over VC Respondent: Dr K D Singh, Director & CPIO, present over intra VC Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information with regard to the cost analysis of Cement and Steel produced in India:
1. Details of the cost analysis of different grades of cement manufactured with and without fly ash.
2. Details of the cost analysis of reinforcement steel and structural steel manufactured in India, through:
a. Blast Furnace route, having captive mines of Iron ore and other minerals.
b. DRI-Pellet route having captive mines of Iron ore and other minerals.1
c. Sponge iron route not having captive mines of Iron and other minerals.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as no information was given to him.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 25.05.2021.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO is incomplete as even though the information does not pertain to the CCI, however, if the public authority was aware as to who holds the information, the CPIO was bound to transfer the RTI application to them. On a query to the CPIO as to whether he is aware as to who is the holder of the information, he submitted that the nature of the problem is that he is not able to locate the holder of the information. Unless he is certain as to who is the custodian of the information, he cannot transfer the RTI application to any other public authority.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
2
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3