Central Information Commission
N Anbarasan vs Centre For Development Of Advanced ... on 19 August, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क ीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/CDADC/A/2018/134755/01365
File no.: CIC/CDADC/A/2018/134755
In the matter of:
N. Anbarasan
... Appellant
VS
CPIO/ Jt. Director (Admin)
Centre For Development of Advanced Computing
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
Pune University Campus, Ganeshkhind, Pune - 411 007
&
Nodal Officer/Economic Adviser,
Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology
RTI/ PG cell, Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
... Respondents
RTI application filed on : 18/11/2017 CPIO replied on : 19/12/2017 First appeal filed on : 27/01/2018
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 28/05/2018 Date of Hearing : 13/08/2019 Date of Decision : 19/08/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Shri Shriniwas S Pownikar, Joint Director & CPIO (Admn), C - DAC, Pune; Shri Chandrakant Dhutadmal, Joint Director & PIO, present in person alongwith Anil Vyas, Manager Finance, present over VC.
1Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the certified copies of the following information:
1. Administrative approval 11(21)/2005-HCC(TDIL) dated 01.12.2005 alongwith all enclosures.
2. "Journal Voucher" prepared and maintained for the project "Indian Language Computing Initiative: National Roll-Out-Plan" approved vide Administrative Approval No. 11(21)/2005-HCC (TDIL) dated 01.12.2005.
3. P.O. No.: CDAC/L05/4453 dated 07.04.2005
4. P.O. No.: CDAC/L05/4454 dated 07.04.2005
5. P.O. No.: CDAC/L05/4455 dated 07.04.2005
6. P.O. No.: CDAC/L05/4456 dated 07.04.2005
7. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant chose not to appear over VC as he submitted in his preceding cases that he had no faith in the decision of this bench and submitted that the Commission can take any decision it wishes.
On a query by the Commission, the CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply had been provided to the appellant on 19.12.2017. He further submitted that the information sought by the appellant is voluminous and scattered in numerous files and hence such information was not provided to the appellant. He also stated that even though the appellant was asked to pay the requisite photocopying charges for getting the desired documents, till date he has not paid the same.
Observations:
The Commission has decided to hear the matter in the absence of the appellant as he himself has desired to walk out of the hearing proceedings which were conducted through VC raising doubts about the intentions of the 2 File no.: CIC/CDADC/A/2018/134755 Bench in deciding the matter impartially. Besides, the respondent department's representative continued to participate in the hearing.
From a perusal of the second Appeal filed by the appellant, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO on points no 1, 2, 10 & 11 of the RTI application. On point no. 1, the PIO Meity submitted that after the RTI application was forwarded to them, complete information was provided to the appellant. With regard to points no 2, 10 & 11, the CPIO, CDAC in his reply dated 19.12.2017 had submitted that the information sought by the appellant covers a vast amount of data which could not be provided to him without incurring a drain on the resources of the public authority and thus the information is covered u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act. On a query by the Commission as to whether an opportunity of inspection was provided to the appellant or not, the CPIO submitted that the appellant had sought information covering over a period of 14 years and for every month there are atleast three volumes created for keeping such information in a compiled form and hence it will not be practically possible to even offer inspection to the appellant. He further submitted that the information sought at points no 10 & 11 of the RTI application contains information which is exempted u/s 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act like firm name, bill number, invoice number and supporting documents.
It is observed that even though the information sought by the appellant on these points is voluminous and spread over numerous files, to satisfy the appellant as to the fact that they are so voluminous, the CPIO is directed to allow selective inspection of the relevant documents upto 20 pages pertaining to a particular year after masking the personal information of the third parties, if any, as the appellant has also failed to specify the particular year for which he requires the information.
Decision:
Based on the above observations, the CPIO is directed to offer selective inspection to the appellant as discussed during the hearing on points no. 2, 10 & 11 of the RTI application at a mutually convenient date and time, within 30 3 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appellant is directed to avail of the said inspection within a period of 01 month from the date of receipt of the letter of inspection from the respondent authority, failing which no further opportunity will be provided to him. The CPIO is also directed to provide the first 10 pages of the relevant documents free of cost to the appellant and thereafter, necessary photocopying charges may be demanded from the appellant. A compliance report to this effect should be submitted to the Commission within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
वनजा एन.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन सरना) सरना सूचना आयु ) Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4