Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

S R Agarwal vs National Textiles Corporation Ltd. on 18 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/2017/148315
S R Agarwal

                                                                 ....अपीलकता
/Appellant

                                       VERSUS
                                            बनाम
PIO, National Textile Corporation
Ltd., Core IV, Scope Complex,
7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.                               ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
                                                   Dates
RTI application                         :          21.02.2017
CPIO reply                              :          31.03.2017
First Appeal                            :          11.04.2017
FAA Order                               :          01.06.2017
Second Appeal                           :          13.07.2017
Date of hearing                         :          11.09.2018
Facts:

The appellant vide RTI application dated 21.02.2017 sought information regarding court case titled as NTC Vs S R Agrawal, case no 1210/2001 on six points as under:

1. Date, month and year of filing of the above mentioned case.

2. Total number of advocates engaged in the case from time to time along with their names & periods of engagement/appointment and terms and conditions of appointment including their fee/remuneration.

3. Whether their fee/remuneration has been settled as consolidated sum or court date-wise or other-wise along with the comprehensive details.

4. Other related information.

The CPIO replied on 31.03.2017. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and filed first appeal on 11.04.2017. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the appeal by virtue of its order dated 01.06.2017. 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 13.07.2017.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Order
      Appellant :         Present
      Respondent :        Shri R.K. Singh,
                          Senior Manager cum PIO,
                          National Textile Corporation Ltd.

During the hearing, the respondent APIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 31.03.2017 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order dated 01.06.2017. The replies furnished to the appellant are 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 and pressing for compensation.

On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that proper reply was not provided to the appellant. Information on point nos. 2, 3 & 4 of the abovesaid RTI application cannot be provided as the same is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. On point nos. 5 & 6 of the above stated RTI application, total expenditure incurred for consultation with private Advocates by the NTC since filing of the court case should be provided to the appellant as the same is being paid out of public exchequer.

In view of improper reply provided by the respondent to the appellant, the appellant submitted that he should be compensated for the detriment caused to him.

Hence, suitable compensation u/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act should be paid to him. However, the Commission does not find any deliberate attempt by the respondent to deprive the appellant or proper information in respect of this RTI application. Hence, the present case is not fit for providing compensation to the appellant.

Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide revised reply on point nos. 5 & 6 of the above mentioned RTI application as discussed during the hearing i.e. total expenditure incurred for consultation with advocates by the NTC during the filing of court cases, complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record (legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.

The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.

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