Information relating to India Non-Judicial stamp paper - CIC: The RTI Application and First Appeal are filed by separate individuals; Since the channel of First Appeal has not been properly exhausted by the Appellant, the second appeal is not maintainable

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.08.2022 seeking information in relation to India Non-Judicial stamp paper of the Denomination of Rupees 10 bearing distinct no. 48AA757988 on the following points:

1. “Whether the given printing structure as available on photocopy of India Judicial stamp paper vide No.48AA 757988 was ever adopted on any of the series of stamp papers. If yes, please mention the series number.

2. Whether the stamp paper mentioned in the subject was ever printed in your press. If yes, the year and month of printing as may be available on your record be supplied to the undersigned.

3. To which state/ district treasury the above stamp paper was dispatched as may be available in your records. The date of dispatch as may be available on your record may be given.

4. Kindly provide any other details available regarding the stamp paper vide No.48AA 757988.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.08.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:

“Point 1 to 4 – The information sought cannot be shared owing to security reasons.

The information sought cannot be shared owing to security reasons. Further it is to state that the disclosure of the sensitive details of the stamp paper(s) would adversely affect the economic interest of the country and would not serve any larger public interest. The information cannot be provided owing to security reasons, by seeking exemption U/Section 8(1)(a), 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005 on the ground that its disclosure would prejudicially affect the economic interest of the country and no larger public interest would be served if disclosed. Further, its disclosure may lead to creation of fake stamp paper(s) and therefore, requisite information is denied.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, a First Appeal dated 27.08.2022 was filed by Shakil Ahmed as a Special Power of Attorney holder of the Appellant. The FAA vide order dated 16.09.2022 rejected the First Appeal filed by Shakil Ahmed detailing reasons for setting aside the arguments of the alleged SPA holder pleading the maintainability of the First Appeal. Yet, for the sake of argument, the FAA also issued observations upholding the denial of the information by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.10.2022.

5. The Appellant was represented during the hearing by Shakil Ahmed in person and on behalf of the Respondent, S S Rathore, Joint General Manager & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Rep. of the Appellant reiterated the information sought for in the RTI Application and upon a remark from the Commission regarding the appropriateness of the FAA’s order in having rejected the First Appeal filed under SPA by Shakil Ahmed, the Rep. of the Appellant feebly stated that the erroneous First Appeal stands rectified as the Second Appeal has been filed by Shamim Alam only.

7. The Respondent submitted that their arguments are the same as contained in their written submissions dated 05.03.2024.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the FAA has appropriately rejected the First Appeal as being not maintainable as the RTI Application and First Appeal are filed by separate individuals. Further, since the channel of First Appeal has not been properly exhausted by the Appellant, the instant second appeal is also not maintainable.

9. The Appeal is treated as infructuous.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shamim Alam v. Security Printing Press, Hyderabad, CIC/SPPRE/A/2022/151493; Date of Decision: 18.03.2024