2015 (2) TMI 687

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in response to his RTI application dated 25-11-2013. Appellant was present. Shri Tarun Kumar, JS (Admn.) & Nodal CPIO; Shri M.K. Sharma, Registrar, and S/Shri T.K. Mohapatra, K.L. Das and Vijay Bhalla, CPIOs were also present. Decision with reasons :- 2. The appellant sought the following information vide his RTI application :- "(A) Please provide certified copies of the directions/orders for priority hearing/disposal of the following Appeals/Complaints :- (i)       CIC/SM/A/2013/000781 (ii)     CIC/SM/A/2013/000223 (iii)    CIC/AD/C/2013/001439 (iv)    CIC/AD/C/2013/001342 (v)      CIC/SM/A/2013/000585 (B)  &nbsp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....formation regarding a case which was pertaining to Shri Karira vide his letter dated 22-12-2013 has referred to two decisions of the CIC which are reproduced below :- "Appeal No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00663, dated 19-11-2007 (http://cic.gov.in/CIC- Orders/WB-22042009-01.PDF) However appellant has raised a pertinent issue in questioning the need for reference to the third party u/s 11(1) That Section specifically refers to information "which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party". It must be accepted as a measure of policy in papers received by this Commission that none of the information so received in an organisation committed to transparency can be treated as confidential unles....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ission, Shri K.L. Das should not have treated the same as third party information and should not have proceeded further to obtain consent of Shri Karira under Section 11. In view of the above decision of the Commission, I agree with the above submissions of the appellant. The Nodal CPIO was directed to circulate the above position to all the CPIOs in the Commission for their guidance. 5. The appellant was also aggrieved that the information sought in respect of the appeals and complaints mentioned at (A)(iii) and (A)(iv) of the RTI application was not provided by Shri Mohapatra, CPIO as he has not allowed the inspection of the concerned files. Shri Mohapatra, CPIO has already replied that both the files are available in the erstwhile ....