BEFORE THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION NEW DELHI

Appellant:

Vikramjit Singh Randhawa 104/3, Pension Nagar, Behind Police Line Talki, NAGPUR 440 013. v/s

Respondent public authority:

Ordnance Factory Ambajhari P O Defence Project, Amravati Road, NAGPUR 440 021.

File No: Date of hearing:

CIC/LS/A/2012/901293 14/06/12

WRITTEN SUBMISSION The appellant has requested information on specific duties and responsibilities of employees of Ordnance factory Ambajhari (hereafter referred as OFAJ) from Central Public Information Officer (hereafter referred as CPIO), OFAJ vide his application dt -- (received by OFAJ on 17/02/11). The CPIO transferred the information request to Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) under sec 6 (3) of RTI Act 2005, which happens to be the same public authority. Ordnance Factory Board is declared as the public authority by Department of Defence Production and the ordnance factories situated in different parts of country cannot be a separate public authority (defn of Public Authority as per Sec 2 (h) of RTI Act 2005 refers). The officers of Ordnance factories have declared every unit of OFB as separate/distinct/independent public authority, which is a gross violation of RTI Act. If not, each unit shall disclose suo-moto information under obligations of sec 4 (1) (b) which is not done by OFAJ. In any case the appellant does not received the information within 30 days as stipulated at sec 7 (1) of the RTI Act. The appellant preferred the First Appeal to First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 21/03/11 (received by OFAJ on 21/03/11).The appellant also filed an addendum to the first appeal on 01/04/11 quoting the order of Honorable High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 288/2009, CPIO Supreme Court v/s Subhash Chandra Agarwal & ANR wherein at point no (23) Honorable High Court has ordered that the RTI application cannot be transferred within a single public authority. The FAA, vide his order dt 11/04/11, seconded the opinion of CPIO and dismissed the first appeal of appellant. On 11/04/11 itself the CPIO, OFB has intimated the appellant that the Page 1 of 3

information requested is being collected from concerned divisions and requested for some more time. On 19/04/11, the CPIO, OFB sent 2 IS notes to the appellant which do not contain the requested information. The information requested was duties and responsibilities (in specific) of Chargeman (Staff), Junior Works Manager (Head of Section), Assistant Works Manager / Works Manager / Deputy General Manager (Divisional Officer), Jt. General Manager (Group Officer), Addl General Manager (Controlling Officer) and General Manager / Sr General Manager (CEO of factory). The certified copies of supporting Govt / Office orders in respect of above were also requested. The information requested happens to be Suo-Moto information as per Sec 4 (1) (b) (ii) of the RTI Act 2005 which the OFAJ was duty bound to publish within 120 days of enactment of the Act for general public. After approximately 6 years, when the same information is requested under the Act, the information was malafidely denied by the OFAJ as well as OFB authorities. However OFB vide its letter no 6558/A/NG dt 13/08/1984 and OFAJ vide its Factory Order no 1030 /E dt 05/09/1984 (copy enclosed) has published the duties and responsibilities of NGOs (which then covers Chargeman and Junior Works Manager).

Relief Sought: 1. Direct the CPIO to provide the requested information requested by appellant at the earliest. 2. Impose the penalty of Rs. 250 / day of delay in providing the information on CPIO as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act 2005. 3. Recommend disciplinary action under section 20 (2) of RTI Act 2005, under present service rules, against CPIO and FAA for knowingly giving incorrect and misleading information to appellant. 4. Award suitable compensation to compensate the mental agony suffered by the appellant. 5. Any other order the Honorable Commission may deem fit.

Date: 02/06/12 Place: Nagpur

(Signature of Appellant)

Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3