On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present in person:- These files contain four appeals and one complaint in respect of the RTI

Transcription

1 Central Information Commission, New Delhi File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/ File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/ File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/ File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/ Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)/(19) Date of hearing Date of decision : : 10th October th October 2016 Name of the Appellant / Complainant Name of the Public Authority/Respondent : Shri C. Satyanarayana, Tower T-2, Flat 902, Prasvnath Platinum Apartments, Swarnanagari, Greater Noida, Distt-Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P. : Central Public Information Officer, GAIL (India) Limited, Gail Bhawan, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, R K Puram, New Delhi The Appellant / Complainant was present in person. On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present in person:- 1. B. M. Solanki, CPIO. 2. Shri A. N. Pandey, FAA. Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal These files contain four appeals and one complaint in respect of the RTI applications dated , , , (two applications), , , , , (two applications) filed by the Appellant / Complainant, seeking information on various issues regarding the

2 Rajamundry Asset and related matters. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he has approached the CIC in four appeals and one complaint. 2. With regard to the RTI application dated (File No. 1903), the Appellant has stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided to him in response to points No. 1, 3, 6, 7 and 10. The Respondents stated that there was a fire incident in KG Basin Rajamundry and disciplinary action is in progress against the Appellant and the information sought by him cannot be provided. The Appellant stated that this plea was not taken by the Respondents when the CPIO responded to his RTI application on He further submitted that the Respondents have not established that disclosure of the information would impede the process of enquiry against him. On perusal of the charge-sheet issued to the Appellant, a copy of which he was carrying, we do not see the information sought in the RTI application dated as being linked to the enquiry. In any case, the representative of the Respondents did not give any justification to establish that disclosure of the information would impede the process of enquiry. In view of the foregoing, the CPIO is directed to respond to point No. 1 of the RTI application on the basis of the records available with the offices concerned of the public authority and after checking the position from the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Regarding point No. 3, the CPIO is directed to provide the information concerning the reports in question, regardless of the office of the public authority, in which the information is available. With regard to points No. 6 and 7, the CPIO is directed to provide the information regardless of the office of the public authority in which it is available. While doing so, the CPIO may exclude / sever any information of commercial confidence

3 concerning the contractor, exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d), from the information to be provided to the Appellant. Regarding point No. 10, the Appellant stated that he wants the information regarding any recommendations concerning precautionary measures to prevent fire incidents. The CPIO should provide this information, if available on records. 3. With regard to the RTI application dated (File No and 459), the Appellant/Complainant stated that he was not satisfied with the compliance by the CPIO with FAA s order dated The Respondents stated that the CPIO complied with the order of the FAA vide his letter dated The Appellant/Complainant also stated that the information provided to him is not certified. On perusal of the CPIO s reply dated , we note that the specific directions of the FAA at points No. 1, 2 and 3 of the order section of his letter dated have not been complied with. With reference to the appeal registered on File No. 2325, the CPIO is directed to do so. The Respondents stated that the information already provided to the Appellant runs into a large number of pages and it may be difficult to certify it. However, since certified information has been sought by the Appellant, the CPIO is directed to provide certified information, by initialling all the pages provided to the Appellant and certifying each document, along with stamp, at the end of the document. The CPIO should follow the same process in respect of certified information sought by the Appellant in other cases. 4. Regarding the RTI application dated (File No. 2156), the Respondents stated that the Appellant can inspect the entire information at their KG Basin office,

4 Rajamundry. They made the same submission in respect of the information on a number of points sought by the Appellant in his applications dated (two applications), , , , and (two applications) [File No. 2329]. The Appellant stated that some of the information sought by him may not be available at the KG Basin Office, Rajamundry. Taking into account the submissions of both the parties, we direct the Respondents to facilitate inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant, in respect of the queries of the RTI applications mentioned above in this paragraph, at the KG Basin office, Rajamundry. In case, the specific information on any particular point is not located at the Rajamundry office, the CPIO is directed to provide it separately to the Appellant. 5. The CPIO should comply with our directives for provision of additional information, as above, within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The information directed to be provided in paragraphs above, other than paragraph 4, should be provided free of charge. The inspection of records, covered by paragraph 4 above, should also be facilitated by the CPIO on a mutually convenient date and time at the KG Basin, Rajamundry office of the Respondents, within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The travel of the Appellant for inspection will be at his cost. After the inspection, he should be given photocopies of up to one hundred pages of the inspected records desired by him, free of charge. Photocopies, if any, required by him beyond the above number, should be given against payment of the prescribed photocopying charges.

5 6. With the above directions and observations, the four appeals and one complaint are disposed of. 7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. Sd/- (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission. (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar