Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001625. Case: Abhishek Kumar Vs Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd.. Central Information Commission

Case NumberAppeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001625
CounselFor Respondents: P. Wilson, DGM/CPIO and K. Dinakar, AGM
JudgesManjula Prasher, Information Commissioner
IssueRight To Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(a)
Judgement DateMay 29, 2015
CourtCentral Information Commission

Court Information Central Information Commission Cases
Judgment Date 29-May-2015
Party Details Abhishek Kumar Vs Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd.
Case No Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001625
Judges Manjula Prasher, Information Commissioner
Advocates For Respondents: P. Wilson, DGM/CPIO and K. Dinakar, AGM
Acts Right To Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(a)


Manjula Prasher, Information Commissioner

1. The appellant Shri Abhishek Kumar, submitted RTI application dated 05.08.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd. (BRBNM), Bengaluru seeking information whether BRBNM invited any pre-qualification bid notice (PQB) for paper for printing of currency on 12.3.2012; details of applicants mentioning their names and addresses; disclosure of the bid amount offered by them; whether the procedure/guidelines/norms laid down by Central Vigilance Commission in integrity pact was followed; copy of official notings prepared in respect of entire proceedings; names and designation of the officials who were responsible to declare qualified bidders in PQB; whether independent external monitors were appointed after the PQB was announced etc. through ten points.

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 07.09.2013 provided information on points 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and denied information on points 2 and 5 under the provisions of Section 8(1)(a) & (d) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant preferred an appeal on 30.09.2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 31.20.2013 held that the CPIO had provided information to the appellant in totality as available with the respondents as per provisions of the Act and no information in the matter had been withheld. However, he directed the CPIO to transfer the part queries on point 9 and 10 to the Reserve Bank of India for providing information directly to the appellant.

3. Thereafter the appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant did not attend the hearing in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him. The respondents stated that in compliance with the directions of the FAA the CPIO vide letter dated 31.10.2013 transferred points 9 and 10 to the CPIO, RBI. They stated that the information related to the procurement of CWBN Paper and the procedures involved thereof...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT