The decision of the CIC was given by:
Padma Balasubramanian, IC
1. The appellant has sent three applications under the RTI Act, one on 12.4.06, second application on 5.6.06 and third application on 21.8.06 It is evident from all the applications that he is seeking some information from the Corporate Vigilance Department relating to some outstanding service grievance. The CPIO of NTPC has to collect information from the Vigilance Branch who have indicated in their letter dated 30.5.06 that there is no data about the case available on record relation to NTPC. The appellate authority in his decision on 27.7.06 has confirmed with the decision of the CPIO. The appellant not satisfied, has submitted second application on 8.7.06 in which he wanted to (i) inspect the dispatch and receipt records of the CVO office for certain period. The CPIO has denied this information u/s 8.1(g) of RTI Act since the information available in this Branch is of confidential nature and hence they are exempted. The appellate authority has agreed with the views of CPIO. Thirdly, the appellant has requested for list of documents duly catalogued and indexed which is related to his own case and in the possession of Vigilance Branch. To this, the CPIO has replied that no such document relating to Manohar Singh are in the possession of corporate vigilance department. This has also been agreed by the appellate authority.
2. Comments were called for from the NTPC and the appellant has also furnished his rejoinder. While going through the reply furnished by the CPIO and the AA, I have observed that they have not passed any speaking order. It seems the appellant has also not raised any specific issue in his application which can be traced by the Vigilance Department. In order to make things clearer a hearing was scheduled on 3.1.07 which was attended by the CPIO and AA of NTPC as well as by appellant.
DECISION
3. It is directed to CPIO and AA that they should arrange a hearing between the CVO of NTPC and the appellant on a mutually convenient date so that they can discuss the matter and wherever information is available can be supplied to the appellant, except in case if they are not falling under the exempted category. By any chance if the information is not traceable or are not available the Vigilance Department has to file an affidavit to the effect stating that the information is not available. This work may be carried out by the CPIO NTPC within a months time and furnish compliance to the Commission. With this direction all the three applications are disposed off.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.