The Central Information Commission decided on a case where the appellant filed an appeal after not receiving valid information about some points mentioned in his RTI application. Here, the court sided itself with the CPIO’s order and untangled all the queries raised by him. Later, the commission directed the CPIO to provide information on the points mentioned by the court.
Looking for some relevant information, the appellant filed an RTI application on the date 10.05.2019. The CPIO replied on the date 10.06.2019 along with all the specific loads against the points 1,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,13 and 14 of the RTI application but denied giving information related to points 2,3,6 and 12 under sections 8(1)(e) and (g) of the RTI Act. After being discontented with this reply, the appellant filed the first appeal but the FAA sided itself with the CPIO’s order.
By being dissatisfied again, the appellant approached the commission with the second appeal. The appellant stated that he was unjustifiably denied information about certain points. He further illustrated that he had been working in the KVS and was expelled from the school without payment and pleaded before the court for directing the CPIO to clear his remaining balance.
The opposition counsel stated that the appellant was hired as a security guard by one of the contractors. The respondent further told the court that the appellant’s duty was not adequate towards the school and henceforth he was replaced. Being disgruntled by this, he filed the RTI application. Moreover, the respondent submitted all the required replies given by the KVS to the appellant as per his application which was evident from the letter dated 10.06.2019.
The court observed all the arguments and facts given by both respondent and appellant. The court also observed that the CPIO did not respond to all the questions raised by the appellant sufficiently in his RTI application. The commission considered all the points and found out that as on points 2,3,6 and 12, he was stopped from receiving the information and it was fairly under the RTI Act. The CPIO was right by not providing information under section 8 (1) e and g because it could have caused incursion to the relationship of the employer and contractor and could also have endangered their lives if disclosed to any other party.
The commission directed the CPIO to provide relevant information on points 5,6,13 and 14. This information would be free of cost and provided within the time frame of 15 days to the appellant. Furthermore, the commission directed the CPIO to accelerate the outstanding amount of the appellant after communicating with the mentioned contractor agency.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can 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.