How many vehicles were provided by the contractor for Krishnanagar SSA every month since award of tender and related information was sought in a case where charge sheet was filed - CIC: PIO to provide the information in relation to some queries11 Jan, 2020
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. How many vehicles were provided by the contractor for Krishnanagar SSA every month since award of tender from 2009 to till date? What was the date of implementation of ERP/SAP system for processing of vehicle bills?
2. What are the powers of TDM and GM BA in the award/extension of tender as per FR & SR and payment of vehicle bills?
3. Details of vehicle bills of the approved contractor processed in Krishnanagar SSA after implementation of ERP system both in manual file and sap system from 1-1-2016 to till date.
4. 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 informed that he had filed this RTI application on behalf of his client Shri X. Antony Raj. The CPIO’s representative reiterated the reply provided by the CPIO. On a query by the Commission whether the FAA had disposed of the first appeal, he was clueless.
The CPIO was not present to brief the Commission regarding the facts of the case.
Based on a perusal of the record it is noted that the respondent submitted a copy of the arrest memo and search list, suspension order, chargesheet and court order to substantiate the fact that the matter is pending before the Court.
The appellant in his grounds for second appeal mentioned that he has received the reply to the RTI application on 26.02.2018 but the same is wholly unsatisfactory. He further submitted that the AGM (HR & Admin) cum APIO has declined to give a reply to the questions raised citing that a major portion of the investigation by CBI is still pending. Thereafter the first appeal was preferred before the FAA because the denial of information by the AGM (HR & Admin) cum APIO, were unsatisfactory,; but there was no reply from the Appellate Authority to the first appeal. He further submitted that it is pertinent to mention that the final report in the form of charge sheet being charge sheet no. 23/2017 u/s 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act has already been submitted against X Antony Raj on 31.07.2017.
The information sought in the RTI application was examined and it was noted that information in respect of points no. 1, 2, 3 (a), (b) can be given. It is pertinent to mention here that the information sought in points no. 3, 3 (c), (d), 4, 5 and 6 cannot be given being personal information of the third parties and also due to the trial pending before the Court of law.
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply enclosing the information sought in respect of points no. 1, 2, 3 (a), (b) within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. The rest of the information sought is exempted u/s 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act as it would impede the prosecution of the offender. A compliance report of this order shall be submitted thereafter by the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Citation: Nazir Ahmed v. CPIO & AGM (HR & Admn) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in Decision no.: CIC/BSNLD/A/2018/141119/02230, Date of Decision: 21/11/2019