CIC: instead of giving clear & precise instructions, the First Appellate Authority has merely asked the PIO to readdress the queries in the RTI applications; FAA directed to ensure that the appeals are disposed of strictly within the stipulated time frame
19 Sep, 2014Facts
These files contain three appeals filed to the Commission by the Appellant, who was not satisfied with the response of the Respondents to his RTI applications dated 20.3.2013, 1.2.2013 and 22.2.2013.
2. The Appellant was not present in spite of a written notice having been sent to him. We heard the submissions of the Respondents.
3. With regard to the RTI application dated 20.3.2013 (File No. CIC/SS/A/2013/001816/SH), the Respondents submitted that the CPIO had denied the information under Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; vide his letter dated 20.4.2013. The first appeal dated 1.5.2013 of the Appellant was disposed of by the Appellate Committee on 29.7.2013. The Appellate Committee directed the CPIO to provide the information in response to queries No. 1 and 2 and readdress the remaining queries. They further submitted that the CPIO vide his letter dated 29.11.2013 provided the information in response to queries No. 2, 3 and 5, but invoked Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; in regard to a part of query No. 1 and completely for query No. 4. Having considered the records and the submissions made by the Respondents before us, intervention by the Commission is not considered necessary in this case.
4. With regard to the RTI application dated 1.2.2013 (File No. CIC/SS/A/2013/001450/SH), the Respondents submitted that the CPIO had denied the information under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act vide his letter dated 4.3.2013. The Appellate Committee disposed of the first appeal dated 12.3.2013 of the Appellant on 6.5.2013 and upheld the decision of the CPIO. We have considered the records and the submissions made by the Respondents before us. We direct the CPIO to provide information regarding the date of the contract and its validity in response to query No. 1 of the RTI application.
5. As regards the RTI application dated 22.2.2013 (File No. CIC/SS/A/2013/001692/SH), the Respondents submitted that the CPIO had advised the Appellant to obtain the information directly from the contractor. The first appeal dated 25.3.2013 of the Appellant was disposed of by the Appellate Committee on 6.5.2013 and the committee merely forwarded a copy of the CPIO’s decision to the Appellant. However, in a subsequent order dated 21.5.2013, the Appellate Committee ordered the CPIO to readdress the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application. The Respondents also stated that pursuant to the above order of the Appellate Committee, the CPIO denied the information under Section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the RTI Act as it involved information concerning close to a thousand labourers. In their written submissions dated 1.8.2014 to the Commission, the Respondents have stated that the wage payment record is prepared and maintained by the concerned contractor as it is the contractor who makes the payments of wages to the contract labour. BHEL only receives bills raised by the contractor, which are processed for making payments to him. In view of the foregoing, we direct the CPIO to provide information to the Appellant regarding the total payment made to the contractor for wages and overtime during the period January 2012 to January 2013.
6. The CPIO is further directed to complete action on our directives in the above mentioned paragraphs within thirty working days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
7. Having considered the records before us, we cannot but observe that the Appellate Committee of the public authority has not performed its function properly. Instead of giving clear and precise instructions to the CPIO, the Committee has in some cases merely asked the CPIO to readdress the queries in the RTI applications of the Appellant. In view of the foregoing, we direct the First Appellate Authority to ensure that its orders are passed after due application of mind and that clear and precise directives are given to the CPIO, rather than merely asking him to readdress the queries in the RTI applications. We also direct the FAA to ensure that all the appeals on RTI matters are disposed of strictly within the timeframe stipulated in the RTI Act.
8. With the above directions and observations, the three appeals are disposed of.
9. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Alok Kumar v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., in File No. CIC/SS/A/2013/001816/SH File No. CIC/SS/A/2013/001450/SHFile No. CIC/SS/A/2013/001692/SH