Central Information Commission
Surendra Singh Solanki vs National Handloom Development ... on 28 March, 2018
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No.: CIC/NHDCL/A/2017/108799
In the matter of:
Surendra Singh Solanki
...Appellant
VS
The CPIO and Senior Manager (Environment),
NHDC Limited, Registered Office, NHDC Parisar,
Near Hotel Lake View Ashoka, Shyamla Hills,
Bhopal, M.P- 462013
...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 08.03.2016
CPIO reply : 12.04.2016
First Appeal : 25.04.2016
FAA Order : 13.05.2016
Second Appeal : 05.02.2017
Date of hearing : 20.03.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 08.03.2016 sought information on seven points; copy of note sheet related to the appointments of Shri Vivek Sharma and Shri Rajeev Sharma and other related information. The CPIO replied on 12.04.2016. The appellant was not satisfied with the CPIO's reply and filed first appeal 25.04.2016. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 13.05.2016 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved with the non- supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed a second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 05.02.2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri V.B. Bhatt,
Senior Manager (Environment) cum PIO,
NHDC Limited
During the hearing, the respondent PIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 12.04.2016 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order dated 13.05.2016. The reply furnished to the appellant is 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 on point nos. 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 of the said RTI application.
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that proper reply was not provided to the appellant on point nos. 6.2 and 6.3 of the said RTI application. A more comprehensive reply should have been provided to the appellant on this point by masking the names, designations and addresses of the third party after applying procedure as stipulated under section 10 (severability clause) of the RTI Act. The sought for information on point no. 6.4 is a third party information exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, hence the same cannot be provided to the appellant. Other replies were not challenged by the appellant concerned and moreover the replies on other points were noted by the Commission to be just and proper.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case in regard to some of the points contained in the said application, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide revised point wise reply on point nos. 6.2 and 6.3 of the said RTI application after applying the procedure stipulated under section 10 (severability clause) of the RTI Act as discussed above, 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] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K.Talapatra) Dy. Registrar