CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
BLOCK IV, OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI 110067
Appeal No.37/ICPB/2006
June 26, 2006
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 19.
Appellant: Shri S.R. Pershad,
Dy. Director of Supplies, DGS&D.
Public Authority: Directorate General of Supplies & Disposals
Ms. Asha Makhijani, CPIO &
Shri Subodha Nath Jha, DG – AA.
FACTS:
By an appln dt21.2.2006 to PIO, appellant, an officer of Indian Supply Service, presently on suspension, sought for copies of notifications issued by POI in terms of Allocation of Business Rules regard decentralization of purchase & disposal functions of DGS&D authorizing various Mins/Depts. to make their own arrangements for purchase of their requirements in yrs 1974, 1984, 1985, 1991 & 1999. By communication dt 7.3.2006, CPIO informed appellant that info sought for in respect of yrs 1974, 1984 & 1985 being related to a period beyond 20 years need not be furnished in terms of S. 8(3) of RTI Act. Further, since all 5 items sought for were policy matters, they were not dealt with in admin. of Dir. of DGS&D. Aggrieved with this decision, appellant filed an appeal before AA on 3.4.2006. In his decision dated 24.4.2006, AA has pointed out that since Allocation of Business is notified by President through Cabinet Secretariat, CPIO should have fwd appln of appellant to Cabinet Secretariat in terms of S. 6(3) of RTI Act. He has also further stated in his decision that since these notifications are published in Gazette of India, appellant could get copies of same from market/ libraries & these are not privy to DGS&D.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
2. Stand of DGS&D that info sought for is available only in Cabinet Secretariat is wrong. Without initiative/involvement of DGS&D & its admin. min., on its own Cabinet Secretariat doesn’t initiate any proposal for reallocation of business relating to DGS&D. Therefore, copies of notifications should be available with DGS&D & as such, CPIO should be directed to furnish same
DECISION :
3. Comments were called for from CPIO. In a most cryptic & short comments that this Commns has ever received, CPIO has intimated that in her letter to appellant on 7.3.2006, she only conveyed info that she had received from Admin of Dir Gen. of Supplies & Disposals & if concerned Dir is able to provide any such document to her, same could be provided to appellant as per direction of AA
4. In terms of RTI Act, it is responsibility of designated CPIO to furnish info sought for by a citizen, if said information is in custody of PA. It is quite possible that info sought for may not be available with CPIO himself/ herself, but if it is available within PA, it is responsibility of CPIO to collect/gather said info from concerned person/section of PA & furnish same to info seeker. In present case, neither CPIO nor AA has categorically stated whether copies of notifications are available within DGS&D or not. If they are not available, a simple communication to appellant to that effect could have sufficed. Observation of AA appellant could get copies of notifications from libraries/shops is uncalled for as in terms of RTIA, a citizen is entitled to get info from PA which is in its possession/ custody even if same is in public domain.
5. Further, PA has erred in interpreting S 8(3) of Act to state that since some of info related to period prior to 20 yrs, same need not be furnished. S. 8(3) is part of S. 8, which deals with ‘exemption from disclosure of info”. S. 8(1) specifies classes of info which are exempt from disclosure. What S. 8(3) stipulates is that, exemption u/s 8(1) cant be applied if info sought related to a period prior to 20 yrs except those covered in S. clauses (a), (c) & (i) of sub-s.8(1). In other words, even if info sought is exempt in terms of other subclauses of sub-s.(1) of S. 8, & if same relates to period 20 yrs prior to dt. of appln., then same shall be provided. In present case, since part of info sought, even though related to period prior to 20 yrs, relate to notifications, DGS&D is bound to furnish same, if same is available with it. It is also stated by CPIO that info sought relates to policy matters not dealt with in admin. of Dir. What appellant seeks is only copies of notification &, therefor, question of same being related to policy matter doesn’t arise.
6. I dispose of this appeal with the direction to CPIO to furnish copies of notifications as sought for by appellant, if available within DGS&D, within 15 days of receipt of this decision. If not available, an affidavit to that effect should be filed before Commn & appellant should be informed accordingly within said period.
7. Let a copy of this decision also be sent to appellant and CPIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :
( Prem K. Gera )
Registrar
Address of parties :
1. Ms. Asha Makhijani, Central Public Information Officer, Directorate General
of Supplies & Disposal, Jeevan Tara Building, 5 Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. Shri S. R. Pershad, GP-18, CPWD Officers Transit Hostel & Guest House,
Aliganj Colony, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003.
BLOCK IV, OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI 110067
Appeal No.37/ICPB/2006
June 26, 2006
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 19.
Appellant: Shri S.R. Pershad,
Dy. Director of Supplies, DGS&D.
Public Authority: Directorate General of Supplies & Disposals
Ms. Asha Makhijani, CPIO &
Shri Subodha Nath Jha, DG – AA.
FACTS:
By an appln dt21.2.2006 to PIO, appellant, an officer of Indian Supply Service, presently on suspension, sought for copies of notifications issued by POI in terms of Allocation of Business Rules regard decentralization of purchase & disposal functions of DGS&D authorizing various Mins/Depts. to make their own arrangements for purchase of their requirements in yrs 1974, 1984, 1985, 1991 & 1999. By communication dt 7.3.2006, CPIO informed appellant that info sought for in respect of yrs 1974, 1984 & 1985 being related to a period beyond 20 years need not be furnished in terms of S. 8(3) of RTI Act. Further, since all 5 items sought for were policy matters, they were not dealt with in admin. of Dir. of DGS&D. Aggrieved with this decision, appellant filed an appeal before AA on 3.4.2006. In his decision dated 24.4.2006, AA has pointed out that since Allocation of Business is notified by President through Cabinet Secretariat, CPIO should have fwd appln of appellant to Cabinet Secretariat in terms of S. 6(3) of RTI Act. He has also further stated in his decision that since these notifications are published in Gazette of India, appellant could get copies of same from market/ libraries & these are not privy to DGS&D.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
2. Stand of DGS&D that info sought for is available only in Cabinet Secretariat is wrong. Without initiative/involvement of DGS&D & its admin. min., on its own Cabinet Secretariat doesn’t initiate any proposal for reallocation of business relating to DGS&D. Therefore, copies of notifications should be available with DGS&D & as such, CPIO should be directed to furnish same
DECISION :
3. Comments were called for from CPIO. In a most cryptic & short comments that this Commns has ever received, CPIO has intimated that in her letter to appellant on 7.3.2006, she only conveyed info that she had received from Admin of Dir Gen. of Supplies & Disposals & if concerned Dir is able to provide any such document to her, same could be provided to appellant as per direction of AA
4. In terms of RTI Act, it is responsibility of designated CPIO to furnish info sought for by a citizen, if said information is in custody of PA. It is quite possible that info sought for may not be available with CPIO himself/ herself, but if it is available within PA, it is responsibility of CPIO to collect/gather said info from concerned person/section of PA & furnish same to info seeker. In present case, neither CPIO nor AA has categorically stated whether copies of notifications are available within DGS&D or not. If they are not available, a simple communication to appellant to that effect could have sufficed. Observation of AA appellant could get copies of notifications from libraries/shops is uncalled for as in terms of RTIA, a citizen is entitled to get info from PA which is in its possession/ custody even if same is in public domain.
5. Further, PA has erred in interpreting S 8(3) of Act to state that since some of info related to period prior to 20 yrs, same need not be furnished. S. 8(3) is part of S. 8, which deals with ‘exemption from disclosure of info”. S. 8(1) specifies classes of info which are exempt from disclosure. What S. 8(3) stipulates is that, exemption u/s 8(1) cant be applied if info sought related to a period prior to 20 yrs except those covered in S. clauses (a), (c) & (i) of sub-s.8(1). In other words, even if info sought is exempt in terms of other subclauses of sub-s.(1) of S. 8, & if same relates to period 20 yrs prior to dt. of appln., then same shall be provided. In present case, since part of info sought, even though related to period prior to 20 yrs, relate to notifications, DGS&D is bound to furnish same, if same is available with it. It is also stated by CPIO that info sought relates to policy matters not dealt with in admin. of Dir. What appellant seeks is only copies of notification &, therefor, question of same being related to policy matter doesn’t arise.
6. I dispose of this appeal with the direction to CPIO to furnish copies of notifications as sought for by appellant, if available within DGS&D, within 15 days of receipt of this decision. If not available, an affidavit to that effect should be filed before Commn & appellant should be informed accordingly within said period.
7. Let a copy of this decision also be sent to appellant and CPIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :
( Prem K. Gera )
Registrar
Address of parties :
1. Ms. Asha Makhijani, Central Public Information Officer, Directorate General
of Supplies & Disposal, Jeevan Tara Building, 5 Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. Shri S. R. Pershad, GP-18, CPWD Officers Transit Hostel & Guest House,
Aliganj Colony, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003.
No comments:
Post a Comment