The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 12 points regarding the copy of the noting prepared by the HR/ concerned Department about identification of cadres, number of posts, skill streams, qualification and age criteria along with the approval of the Competent Authority on the same; total number of applications received for the post of GM (Actuary), DGM (IT), DGM (Legal), AGM (Life/ Non Life), AGM (IT), AGM (Legal) and Manager (F&A/ Investment), Manager (Non-Life), Manager (IT) etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 21.05.2019, provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 27.08.2019, provided point wise clarification to the Appellant.

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present and assisted by Manu Jain in person.

Respondent: Mohinder Singh Yadav, Director & CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission, Block A, INA, New Delhi present in person.

Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as information sought was abruptly denied under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without any justification. He further stated that the 'report' sought under paras 1 & 2 of the RTI Application pertains to the investigation carried out by SEBI which was sought by CVC for the inquiry into the complaint of the Appellant, which apparently has been concluded and thus the same was sought under the instant RTI Application. He furthermore stated that at para 3 of the instant RTI Application, file notings and action taken on the aforementioned report of SEBI by CVC were sought. In addition, Appellant stated that the CPIO is deliberately concealing the information under the garb of incomplete investigation as well as taking shelter under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present and assisted by Dalip Sachdev in person.

Respondent: Karan Goyal, Dy. Manager (HR & A) & Rep. of CPIO and Shiv Kumar, Legal Officer, Bharat Electronics Ltd, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad present in person.

Rep of the Appellant stated that CPIO has wrongly denied the information sought in the instant RTI Application by misconstruing Section 8(1) (d), (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. He further stated that large scale malpractices are prevailing in the Respondent Authority and that in the exam for the post of Senior Engineer (Mechanical), credible and deserving candidates such as the Appellant was overlooked in the garb of favoritism and nepotism. He furthermore stated that such practices are hampering the future of the nation, hence, requested the Commission to recommend an investigation into the aforesaid matter.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points regarding the certified copy of documents with information of respective provisions under any prevailing law substantiating that M/s Oriental Power Cables Limited is the Group Companies of Kota Dall Mill, a Partnership Firm as also showing nexus between M/s Oriental Power Cables Limited and Shri Rajendra Agarwal and other issues related thereto.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 09.03.2018 while relying upon the decisions of the Commission in the case of Shri Vijay Kamble Vs. Customs Department, Mumbai in File No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01466 dated 23.03.2009; in Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00586 dated 18.09.2007 and in File No. Page 2 of 15 CIC/AT/A/2008/00424 dated 28th July, 2008 wherein it was held that the RTI Act, 2005, could not be invoked to access the information related to quasi judicial proceeding. Dissatisfied with the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 13.04.2018, upheld the CPIO's response.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the Character Certificate/Birth Certificate/School Leaving Certificate/Kotwal Pustika with regard to Shri Kamraj Omkar Dandnaik (Manager LPG Bulk Transport) and Shri Vijay Gulabrao Ingale (Security Supervisor) along with the details of all conductors above 60 years of age, etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Page 1 of 5

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought PAN records relating to D L Bhatta and Kailash Gyan Talkies.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 04.04.2018 denied disclosure of information relating to the PAN of D L Bhatta u/s 8 (1) (j). As regards the information relating to Kailash Gyan Talkies it was stated that the same pertained to the ITO, Ward 3 (2) hence the application was transferred to the concerned ITO. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 30.05.2018 denied disclosure of information u/s 8 of the RTI Act, 2005.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Manoj Kumar through VC;

Respondent: Mr. Chater Singh Pal, Ward 2 (3) (1) through VC;

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the date of assumption of charge of CIT, MC, XV, vide transfer order dated 22.06.2001 and the name of the said CIT, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.03.2018, denied disclosure of information u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The Order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 26.04.2018, in compliance with the directions of the FAA, called for the requisite information from the DCIT (HQ), Administration, Mumbai and as per the communication received from the officer concerned, the available information in the matter with the office of the Pr. CCIT, Mumbai is that Shri Sudhir Chandra was posted as CIT, XV, Mumbai, as per Board's Order No. dated 22.06.2001.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the ITR, Profit and Loss Account/ Balance Sheet of Shri Om Sai Charitable Health and Educational Trust, Jodhpur of Mr. Pradeep Vidhani for the FY 2009-10 to 2017-18.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 15.05.2018 denied disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 21.06.2018 directed the CPIO and ITO (Exemption), Jodhpur to verify/ ascertain whether Shri OM Sai Charitable Health and Educational Trust was in receipt of substantial aids from Government directly or indirectly and if so provide the details of the information sought by the Appellant to the extent as available in his custody within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the details of source of income, details of business, place of business (with complete address and firm's name) and Annual Income of Mr. Yashwant Singh, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 10.04.2018, denied disclosure of information u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 02.05.2018, upheld the CPIO's response.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Suresh Chand Agarwal through VC;

Respondent: Absent;

Third party: Mr. Yashwant Singh through VC;

Page 1 of 7

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points on whether the Board of LIC of India took up any issue and more particularly the VRS issue of Jagannatham Sri Pulavathy (JS Pulavarthy) and Srinivas Rao Yelchur (SR Yelchur), details of the Board Meeting in which it was taken up and discussed; copy of the Agenda Item containing the VRS issue of Mr. Jagannatham Sri Pulavathy (JS Pulavarthy) and Srinivas Rao Yelchur (SR Yelchur), etc. The CPIO vide its letter dated 12.06.2018 while stating they were seeking answers to interrogatory questions/ opinions of the CPIO which did not fall within the purview of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005 denied disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.06.2018 concurred with the response of the CPIO.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought inspection of files, documents and records pertaining to the recruitment exercise done by the IRDAI in the year 2009 (dated 19.08.2009 for the post of JD, DD and AD), 2011 (Ref No 001/Emp/IRDA/2011 dated 08.02.2011) and September, 2017 (Ref No HR/recruitment/ Sept 2017 dated 27.09.2017).

The CPIO vide its reply dated 15.06.2018 stated that the RTI application/ appeal had been replied as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 hence the request of the Appellant for inspection of files was not considered necessary to be acceded to. As regards the other comments it was stated that the letters addressed to the Chairman were processed and also replied as deemed necessary and that mere statement of irregularities, etc in the view of the Appellant did not ipso facto become an irregularity by itself and that non-satisfaction of replies received under RTI was not a ground for requesting inspection of files. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 08.08.2018 while concurring with the response of the CPIO referred to the decisions of the Commission in CIC/CC/A/2014/002971/SB dated 28.12.2015 and the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Page 1 of 6 Appeal No 9052/2012 in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs Saiyad Hussain Ababs Rizvi and Anr and stated that the files which were relating to the Recruitment exercise done by the authority during the years 2009, 2011 and 2017 contained the details of qualification, experience of the candidates who appeared, shortlisted and finally selected.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding his letter dated 22.05.2018; whether the LIC of India had received the aforementioned letter from the Appellant; whether the said letter was put upto Shri V K Sharma, Chairman, LIC of India, if yes, whether he had made any comments/ remarks on the same and issues related thereto.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 29.08.2018 provided a point wise response. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 29.09.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Suresh Nair through VC:

Respondent: Mr. K. K. Jha, Chief RTI & CPIO, Mumbai and Mr. K. S. Sarkar, Secretary (Personnel) through VC;

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 09 points on whether the Chairman, IRDAI had made any comments/ remarks on letter dated 27.07.2017, if yes, copy of the letter along with the remarks; copies of the file notings prepared by the HR department while putting up the letter dated 27.07.2017 for the information of the competent authority along with the comments made by the Competent Authority on the notings, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 14.12.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant wherein for points 01 to 05, it was stated that the queries were not specific. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 24.01.2018 remanded the matter to the CPIO to provide the information within 10 days. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO, vide letter dated 20.09.2018, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant.

Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Section Officer and PIO, present in person Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the attendance record, monthly salary details and transfer details of Kumari Pooja Kushwaha D/o Brijlal Kushwaha, TGT (WE) for the period 05/09/2012 to 03/03/2018.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information.

1

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that the third party is his daughter-in-law and she had filed a case against the appellant and his son. Hence, he wants the information to point out certain irregularities concerning her. The CPIO submitted that in compliance with the FAA's order a reply was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 16.08.2018. He further submitted that the information sought is related to personal information of third party and hence cannot be given.

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Sanjeev Sharma, GM(T) & CPIO, National Highways Authority of India, NHAI Headquarters, New Delhi present in person.

CPIO submitted that documents sought a paras 5 and 6 of the RTI Application are revenue records and not available with them. He further submitted that revenue records pertaining to land acquisition are available with Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) under concerned State Government.

Decision Commission has gone through the case records and observes that RTI Application largely seeks clarification/interpretation of the CPIO which is outside the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Based on the submissions of the CPIO during hearing, Commission expresses displeasure over the action of CPIO in not transferring paras 5 and 6 of the RTI Application to CALA under concerned State Government under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act and warns him to be careful in future while dealing with the RTI Applications. In view of the foregoing, no further action lies.

Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Shri Braj Kishore Narayan Singh, Principal and CPIO, JNV, present over VC Information Sought:

The appellant was working as librarian in the school during August 2011 to February 2014. He wrote a letter on 03/11/2017 and sent an e-mail on 11/12/2017 regarding adjustment of salary for the strike period during February 2013 against the balance of leave, but no action was taken either on application or on the e-mail. In this regard he has sought the following information:

1. Details of action taken on the said letter and e-mail.

1

2. Reasons for non-payment of salary for the strike period during February 2013.

3. Copy of his service book - Vol. II.

1

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Ms Nandhini Varma, Programme Executive & CPIO, All India Radio, Sasaram, District - Rohtas present through VC. CPIO submitted that available and relevant information has been provided to the Appellant upon receipt of Rs.6/- as photocopying charges. Decision Appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to plead his case/contest CPIO's submission. Commission upholds the submission of the CPIO. No further action lies.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा ) Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) Haro Prasad Sen Dy. Registrar 011-26106140 / haro.sen@nic.in हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by User 2 Date: 2020.02.11 17:31:37 IST

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Abhishek Singh, DCDA & CPIO, O/o PCDA (Pen), Allahabad present though VC.

Appellant has intimated the Commission vide e-mail dated 16.01.2020 that his issue has been resolved and he does not want to pursue the present matter. Decision Commission accepts the prayer of the Appellant and closes the case.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा ) Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) Haro Prasad Sen Dy. Registrar 011-26106140 / haro.sen@nic.in हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by User 2 Date: 2020.02.11 17:33:54 IST

Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Dr Usha Kumari, Assistant Commissioner and CPIO, present in person Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the details of action taken in respect of his letter dated 18.07.2018 sent to the Commissioner, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information.

1

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that he is aggrieved as the action taken in respect of his letter dated 18.07.2018 sent to the Commissioner, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti was not provided to him.

The CPIO submitted that the then CPIO was Smt. Kusum Kumari Singh, Assistant Commissioner, Jaipur. She further regretted the delay in providing a reply to the appellant. On a query by the Commission, she submitted that apt replies were provided on 23.05.2019 and 20.06.2019.

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.

Respondent: Dr. Nimish Pillai, CMO & CPIO, Mormugao Port Trust, Administrative Office, Head Land Sada, Goa present through VC. Appellant stated that she is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO who has denied provision of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. CPIO submitted that information sought has been denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act because the same pertained to treatment/tests of third party(s). Decision Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO in absence of any larger public interest in the matter. No further action lies.