Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001665/SG/14595 and Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001665/SG. Case: A.G. Shah Vs S.K. Srivastava CPIO and Dy. Chief Engineer Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001665/SG/14595 and Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001665/SG |
| Judges | Shailesh Gandhi, I.C. |
| Issue | Right to Information Act |
| Judgement Date | September 14, 2011 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
Decision: Shailesh Gandhi, I.C. Information Sought: 1. The Applicant had sought information on 75 queries mainly relating to departmental proceedings conducted against Mr. B.D. Vyas, another employee of the organization. Queries were also formed seeking information on labour welfare offices, IBA (Integrated Business Appliance) a software used by the NPCIL, service matter and movable & immoveable property of Sri R.K. Bhiksham of KAPS NPCIL, etc. Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO): 2. Under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information sought for was rejected for being voluminous and as such would disproportionately divert the resources of NPCIL. Grounds for the First Appeal: 3. Not satisfied with the exemption claimed under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA): 4. FAA agreed with the decision of the PIO. Grounds for the Second Appeal: 5. Appellant aggrieved with the FAA's order validating the stand taken by PIO. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: 6. The following were present: Appellant: Mr. A.G. Shah; Respondent: Mr. S.K. Srivastava, CPIO & Dy. Chief Engineer on video conference from NIC-Mumbai; 7. The Appellant had sought information through 75 queries spread over many pages. Appellants must also exercise some reasonable restrain when seeking information under the RTI Act. The PIO has stated that providing information on so many queries would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. The Commission would like to point out that Section 7(9) of the RTI Act is not an exemption clause but only states that if providing information would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority the information would be provided in an alternate format. The Commission warns the PIO that in future when... |
To continue reading
Request your trial