Re: [HumJanenge] Report which can undergo changes is not "information"

Yes, in particular YOU should read the defn of "right to information".
Is the information "held by" or is it "under the control of" the PA ?

Sarbajit

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:00 PM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:

Mr Sarbajit,

Your "seasoned and experienced" ex bureaucrat and now IC in the CIC, needs to read the definitions in Sec 2 of the RTI Act !

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2011_001885_M_79869.pdf 

The appellant had filed an application dated 22.9.2010 under the RTI Act
seeking copy of the report on integration of UD and PD – issues relating to interse seniority in Managerial Technical Cadre – with refer No. CM (HR) C-T-1160
dated 14.12.09. The CPIO vide his letter dated 7.10.2010 informed the appellant
that the matter is being examined by the management. It has not been accepted
by the Company till date. Since the report is not accepted by the Company, it is
not an official document of the company. Therefore the report is not 'information'
under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
.
.
.
.
.
.
During the hearing the respondent submits that the Management of FACT
constituted a Committee of senior officials to examine and make
recommendations for solving the inter-se seniority problems in the technical
cadre in the proposed Udyogmandal Complex set up. The integration of the
Udyogmandal Division and Petrochemical Division is not yet completed. The
recommendation/report of the Committee has not yet been accepted by the
Management. It is subject to various changes based on the discussion with the
Unions. The issue of inter-se seniority in the technical cadre is being discussed
with the Unions. The purpose of the report of the Committee of senior officials is
only to conduct negotiation with the Unions to sort out the issue of inter-se
seniority. In other words, it is a management tool for discussion with Unions. It
the report is released to the Unions, the very purpose of constituting the
Committee is defeated.

Having considered the submissions of the parties the Commission is of
the view that the information sought for by the appellant does not fall within the
meaning of 'information' as contained u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the abovesaid report is subject to various changes based on the discussions with the
Unions. The requisite information permissible under the RTI Act has been
provided to the appellant by the respondent.

RTIwanted