Central Information Commission
P K Sharma vs Mumbai Port Trust on 23 March, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/YA/A/2016/001694/MP
Appellant : Shri P.K. Sharma, Mumbai
Public Authority : Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai
Date of Hearing : February 27, 2017
Date of Decision : March 20, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Present - through VC
Respondent : Shri S. H. Tiwari, Dy Traffic Manager - through
VC
RTI application : 14.01.2016
CPIO's reply : 01.02.2016, 21.01.2016
First appeal : 10.02.2016
FAA's order : 18.02.2016
Second appeal : 23.03.2016
ORDER
1. Shri P.K. Sharma, the appellant, sought information regarding total shore crane operators on the muster roll of the respondent till the date of filing of his RTI application; total no. of shore crane operators operating with the crane capacity of 1- 5 tones, 6-10 tones and 11-16 tones; basic salary of the shore crane operators operating with the above mentioned capacity; certified true copy of Check-off scheme, rules, regulation, if applicable, to the respondent, etc.
2. The CPIO I vide letters dated 19.01.2016 and 01.02.2016 informed the appellant that information sought by him in his RTI application was not available with their office and it was forwarded to the CPIO II for providing information to him directly. The CPIO II also intimated the appellant that the information sought by him did not pertain to their Department as there was no such category existing/working in the said Department. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the FAA stating that his application was wrongfully transferred to the CPIO II who was not concerned with the requisite information and the officer concerned had deliberately denied information to him. He requested the FAA to furnish him the information sought. The FAA upheld the decision of CPIOs. Aggrieved, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the CPIO & FAA had deliberately and mala-fidely denied information to him and requested the Commission to provide him the information sought in addition to penalty and recommendation of necessary departmental action against the CPIO & FAA.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had not been provided any information and reiterated his request for providing the information sought.
4. The respondent stated that they had intimated the appellant that no information was available with the Traffic Deptt as the shore cranes were managed by Mechanical & Electrical Engg Department. The MEED returned the RTI application to the CPIO, Traffic stating that no such category was working in their department.
5. The Commission finds it surprising that the officers of the Port Trust, Mumbai should not know as to who manages the shore crane operations and the details thereof. The reply that the information is not available with a particular department is too simplistic. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to obtain the information from all the branches concerned which deal with such matters and respond to the RTI application, point wise, as per the available information on their record, within 20 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
The Central Public Information Officer The Central Public Information Officer Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai Port Trust, D-1416F, Traffic Manager's Office, Mechanical & Electrical Engg Deptt Port House, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Chief Mechanical Engineer's Office Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400001 Nirman Bhawan, 5th Floor, Mazagaon Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400010 Shri P.K. Sharma The BT&DW Union, Sharoff Mansion 4th Floor, R. No. 25, 157-B, Mello Road, Carnac Bunder Mumbai-400001