In the current case, the Appellant seeks information regarding Purchase Orders regarding which the Respondent had provided very little information. Amita Pandove, Information Commissioner will decide the Second Appeal filed by the Appellant. The Information Commissioner will decide as to whether the CPIO needs to provide the information sought by the Appellant.
The Appellant filed an RTI Application on 12th April 2018. In the application, the Appellant sought information about Purchase Orders, bills submitted by Vendors/Suppliers from 01/07/2017 to date, provide a copy of Bills of Registered Vendors/suppliers with Store Department, Northern Railway Firozpur and specifying date of AB No. and C07 of each bill passed.
The Appellant didn’t receive any response from the CPIO. So, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 22nd June 2018 which hadn’t been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Hence, the Appellant filed for a Second Appeal on 4th April 2019 under Section 19 of the RTI Act on the ground of non-receipt of information from the Respondent.
The Appellant stated that other than the purchase orders, no information has been provided to him to date. The Appellant had stated that the Respondent had provided very little information. Even the information provided wasn’t certified by the Respondent. The Appellant also stated that he was a vendor and said that the information sought by him was that of public interest.
Shri Har Bans Singh has provided the available information which is permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act. He also added that it would be tough to provide copies of the purchase order as there is a separate file for each purchase order due to which the Appellant was asked to inspect the files.
Shri Jai Bhagwan had also stated that the Nodal RTI Officer had transferred the necessary information to the Division Material Manager, Northern Railway on 13th January 2021 and the same had been received by them on 16th April 2021.
The Tribunal had observed Section 19 of the RTI Act to understand the Grounds of the appeal. The Commission had also analyzed the meaning of public interest to see whether the same is applicable in this case.
The Commission stated that the information sought by the Appellant was voluminous. Moreover, this information is not useful for the larger public interest. The information sought is for the Appellant’s own personal interest. Hence, the information provided by the CPIO is more than enough. The CPIO needn’t provide any additional information. This appeal has been dismissed.
Click here to read the judgement.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.