List of tenders valued above Rs. 25 crores & below Rs. 25 crores in last five years was denied u/s 7(9) & 8(1)(j) - PIO: voluminous information pertaining to two states spread over many units and subunits with branches - CIC: appeal dismissed
9 Apr, 2014O R D E R
Facts:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 2512012 requesting for a list of tenders valued above Rs. 25 crores from 112007 to 31122011. The appellant also wanted a list of all the tenders valued below Rs. 25 crores in the last five years from 112007 to 31122011.
2. The CPIO response is not on record. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 1142012. The FAA responded on 2452012 and informed the appellant that some information pertained to 20 field units and in large number of files was not available. Information relating to tenders awarded was uploaded and could be seen on public domain www.sr.indianrailways.gov.in. Some information was denied to the appellant under section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. and section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act as the same was not readily available in the records. The FAA further requested the appellant that in case he wanted any clarifications and specific query he could visit this office or the field office. The appellant approached the Commission on 1112012 in a second appeal. Hearing:
3. I heard the respondent through videoconferencing.
4. He stated that they have no problem in providing any information which the appellant is seeking but the main bottleneck is that the appellant is seeking voluminous information which is spread over many units. The respondent stated that the information pertained to two states, i.e., Tamilnadu and Kerala. It was stated that there are a number of subunits and each subunit has 20 field units with branches such as Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Signal Engineering.
5. The respondent said that the information is scattered in different files under different covers and that the information is being sought for a number of years. The respondent said that they had accordingly written to the appellant to visit the field units and specify whatever information is required.
6. The respondent said that they have cited sections 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. as well as 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. in their letter dated 2452012 stating that they are not in a position to give information as the same was not readily available. The respondent further stated that the best course for the appellant was to specify what information is required and it will be given as available.
7. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
Decision:
8. The approach taken by the respondent in the matter is upheld. Intervention of the Commission is not required. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Anil Todi v. Southern Railway in Decision No.CIC/AD/A/2012/903584/VS/06445