Central Information CommissionShri Tanaji Vithal Jadhav vs Mumbai Port Trust on 21 October, 2008CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                              .....
                                      F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00546
                                     Dated, the 21st October, 2008.

 Appellant       : Shri Tanaji Vithal Jadhav

 Respondents : Mumbai Port TrustThis matter was heard on 20.10.2008. Appellant was absent. Respondents
were represented by Shri Gautam Dey, Dy. Docks Manager.2.     Upon perusing the records submitted by both parties and after hearing the
submissions of the CPIO, it is noted that appellant has first submitted his
RTI-application in Marathi to the CPIO. Later, at the appellate stage, he
submitted an English version of his RTI application which was different from the
Marathi version in several details. AA apparently acted on the English version of
the appellant's application. It is further noticed that appellant inserted a line in
ink in his English RTI-application, copy of which has been submitted to the
Commission. CPIO pointed out that no such writing in ink existed in the English
copy of the RTI-application submitted by the appellant to the respondents /
public authority.3.      There is lack of clarity about what exactly the appellant wants to receive
as information from the respondents. CPIO pointed out that the information
solicited by the appellant was not centrally maintained by the public authority for
the period prior to 1997. As such, it would be necessary to look into the service
records of each of the over 10,000 employees in order to tabulate the information
requested by the appellant. This may bring the matter within the scope ofSection 7 (9)of the RTI Act.4.     It is noticed that the Appellate Authority has not fully considered the
appellant's queries in the light of the precise information the appellant wishes to
have, the information which is centrally available with the public authority and
information which can be supplied to him without straining the resources of the
respondents. In order to assess this aspect of the appellant's RTI-application, it
would be necessary to give a hearing to the appellant and to ascertain from him
as to what precise information he wished to have and then to evaluate it in terms
of the provisions of theRTI Actin order to determine whether it can be
disclosed.5.    In view of the above, matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority,
Shri A.K. Bal, Deputy Cahirman, Mumabi Port Trust, with a direction that hePage 1 of 2should, within four weeks of the receipt of this order, give a hearing to the
appellant, determine as to what precise information appellant wishes to have and
after de-novo consideration of appellant's request for information decide whether
it can be authorized to be disclosed under the provisions of theRTI Act.6.    Appeal is accordingly disposed of.7.    Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.( A.N. TIWARI )
                                             INFORMATION COMMISSIONERPage 2 of 2