Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Facts:
Shri Banshi Dhar of the Ordnance Factory Cell, Ministry of Defence made a
request to Shri Alok Perti, JS & CPIO, Ministry of Defence on 1.12.06 seeking the
following information:
1. “The reasons for not taking the SRO 133/79 in to account while
accepting/ processing the DPC proposals for effecting the
promotions to the post of Dy. Manager/ DADG in the years
1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and onwards.
2. The level at which the decision was taken to delete the Staff
Officer as feeder grade in the DPC proposals.
1
To this he received a response dated3.1.07 from Mr. V. Saraswathy Dy.
Secy. (P) answering the questions Para wise as below:
“(1) (2) & (3) Records are not available
Aggrieved by this response Shri Banshi Dhar then moved his first appeal
before Shri P.K. Rastogi, Addl. Secretary DP & First Appellate Authority pleading
that “the information sought for is very much specific as may be seen from my
application but the CPIO has failed to provide any of the information”. He also
made some observations on the manner in which the response of CPIO Mr.
Saraswathy had been provided. Upon this First Appellate Authority Shri P.K.
Rastogi found no merit in the appeal and accordingly dismissed the same on
31.1.07. Shri Dhar has, therefore, moved his second appeal before us with the
following prayer:
“The Honour is very humbly requested to intervene in the
matter and issue directives to the Ministry of Defence /
Ordnance Factory Board to provide me the information as
asked in my application dt. 1.12.2007.”
2
Shri B. Pattanaik, Director
DECISION NOTICE
It is correct that, as argued by appellant Shri Banshi Dhar, u/s 2 (f) of the
RTI Act ‘opinion’ is disclosable, but the definition of information under this sub
section of section 2 clearly lays down that information means that the information
must be in the form of “any material”. Therefore, any ‘opinion’ to be provided
must be recorded opinion. By the same argument, if there is no recorded opinion
on a particular subject on which information has been sought, the CPIO is
required to inform the applicant that there is no such record. Similarly, if no
action has been taken on a decision in a meeting held in the office of Addl.
Secretary on 30.5.91 on which it has been subsequently decided not to
implement the decision, this is required to be conveyed in response to the
question (6) of appellant Shri Banshi Dhar. It is entirely incorrect to state that
such information is not covered by section 2(f) since this will clearly constitute the
‘right to information’ as defined u/s 2(j), which allows for accessibility to any
information “which is held by or under the control of any public authority”.
We also find that 1st Appellate Authority Shri P.K. Rastogi in dismissing the
appeal of Shri Banshi Dhar has failed to apply his mind. Instead of addressing
the information sought by appellant Shri Banshi Dhar in his original application,
3
he has only addressed the observations of Shri Banshi Dhar made in his appeal
of 9.1.07 on the manner of disposal of that application by CPIO and come to the
conclusion that the appellant has only expressed his views and not sought any
information.
In light of the above, the order of Shri P.S. Rastogi, Addl. Secretary (DP)
and First Appellate Authority dated 31.1.07 is set aside. CPIO, Dep’t. Of
Defence Production, Ministry of Defence Shri V. Saraswathy, Dy. Secretary (P) is
directed to give a point wise response to the information sought by appellant Shri
Banshi Dhar in his application of 1.12.06. If no such decision as sought has been
taken regarding a question raised by appellant in any of his six questions, the
appellant Shri Banshi Dhar will be required to be informed accordingly.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed. CPIO will now provide the required
response, with information as held by the public authority, to appellant Shri
Banshi Dhar within fifteen working days of the date of issue of this Decision
Notice under intimation to Shri Pankaj K.P.Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar of this
Commission. Because the information was not provided within the time limit
specified, it will now be provided free of cost u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
25.1.2008
(Pankaj KP Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
25.1.2008