Appellant: his claims for certain TA & medical bills are pending for almost three years, information has been denied claiming that it relates to third party - CIC: PIO directed to ensure expeditious processing; compensation of Rs. 1000/- granted
1 Jan, 2015Information sought:-
The appellant has sought the following information pertaining to claims of Mr. Rajiv Gupta, Sr. GM, Bhagalpur
1. Copy of the passed transfer TA Bill from Bhagalpur to MDI submitted on 28.3.11 and note sheets containing details of deduction along with the reasons.
2. Application submitted on 28.3.11 pertaining to HRA at NCR rates& actual lodging charges (Rs 63,000) for the residential course at MDI & note sheets containing disposal of application.
3. Application submitted on 28.3.11 pertaining to availing Home Town concession with Earned Leave Encashment & note sheets for disposal of application. Also furnish note sheets for disposal of Home Town Concession TA bill in view of clarification letter issued by BSNL Corporate office revising transfer orders.
4. Paris TA bill submitted on 19.11.11 & note sheets containing disposal of bill.
5. Application for Ad-hoc allowance for stationary as per rules submitted on 19.11.11 and note sheets containing its disposal and also giving reasons for its denial, if any.
6. Application for reimbursement of boarding charges amounting to Rs 47,250 for stay at MDI submitted on 19.11.11 and note sheets containing its disposal and also giving reasons for its denial, if any.
7. Copy of passed medical bills submitted on 11.8.11 & 19.11.11 and note sheets containing reasons for deductions with relevant rules.
8. Also furnish the relevant rules in support of the non-passing of the claims or deductions made contradicting the rules or orders mentioned in the application/letters.
9. The relevant papers and note sheets for disposal of various reminders dated 20.7.11, 4.8.11, 20.10.11, 4.10.11, 8.11.11, 19.11.11, 6.2.12 and 17.7.12 addressed to CMD & CGM Bihar Circle.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Gupta through VC
Respondent: Mr. Mehtab Alam CPIO’s representative through VC
The appellant stated that his claims for Rs. 1,500/-, Rs. 47,250/- and certain medical bills are pending for almost three years and in response to his RTI application the respondent have denied information claiming that the information relates to third party. The CPIO’s representative explained that the appellant had demanded copies of notesheets and the custodian of the records had claimed exemption under Section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: . As regards the pending bills he stated that the matter is under process and decision will be taken shortly. The appellant pleaded that he has faced harassment due non provision of information and some compensation should be allowed.
Decision notice:
The CPIO is directed to ensure that the appellant’s unpaid bills are processed expeditiously and decision conveyed to him within 30 days. Further, if some deductions are made from the appellant’s pending bills the relevant file notings thereof should be provided to him. Section 11 of the RTI Act comes into play only when information relating to a third party is sought. In the matter at hand the appellant had sought file notings relating to the processing of his own bills and hence recourse to Section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the RTI Act was clearly erroneous. Thus, it is apparent that the appellant has not received proper information in response to his RTI application dated 29/09/2012. For the inconvenience caused to him, he deserves to be compensated. Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in the CIC in Section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act we direct the department to compensate him by an amount of Rs. 1000/- for the inconvenience and detriment caused to him. Accordingly, the CPIO should ensure that this amount is remitted to the appellant by demand draft/pay order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Rajiv Gupta v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/002418/6167