CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION - CIC

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONBLOCK IV, OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI 110067Appeal No.54/ICPB/2006F.No.PBA/06/11July 21, 2006In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 19.Appellant:Public authority:Shri Kishur J. AggarwalPEC LimitedShri Naresh Cheti, CPIOShri A.K. Mirchandani –Appellate authorityFACTS:By an application dated 22.11.2005 to the CMD of PEC Limited, the appellant sought forthe following information:• Details of purchase of computer, hardware and its accessories in the last five years.• Details must include date of purchase, description, tender/direct,place of use, price,number of pics, amount.• The work sheet should be prepared on monthly basis.• I want copies of purchase bills mentioned in the work sheet.• I will pay the cost of copies as per Act.• On receiving the data sheet required, we want to inspect the concerned files/register.2. By a letter dated 22.12.2005, the CPIO furnished the details of the computers purchasedduring the year 2004-2005 and informed the appellant that other details were not readilyavailable and its compilation would call for non optimum use of limited fiscal resources.Aggrieved with the decision, the appellant filed an appeal on 26.12.2005 before the appellateauthority. The appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO. In the present appeal, theappellant has alleged that both the CPIO and the appellate authority have refused the informationsought and as such they should not only be directed to give full information but should also bepenalized as per the Act.

DECISION:3. Comments were called for from CPIO. He has stated that the information for the year2004 –2005 which was readily available was furnished to the appellant and in respect of theother information sought, if the appellant is willing to pay the cost of collecting/preparing theinformation in terms of Section 7.3 of the RTI Act, the same would be furnished. This Sectionauthorizes CPIO to determine further fee as cost of providing the information. By a letter dated31 st March, 2006, the CPIO has also informed the appellant that the cost of compiling theinformation would be Rs.40,000 and if the appellant deposited this amount, the informationcould be furnished to him. From the details of the information sought for by the appellant, I findthat collection and compilation of the information would definitely involve time and cost and assuch the CPIO was justified in informing the appellant that provision of information would callfor non optimum use of limited fiscal resources. However, now that CPIO has informed theappellant that on payment of cost of collection as computed by him, the information would besupplied, the appellant may act accordingly. In case, he has any reservation on the costcomputed, he may appeal to the appellate authority, as this appeal was preferred before theCPIO communicated the cost of collection. Since, I find that the CPIO has acted in accordancewith the provisions of the Act, the question of imposing any penalty on him does not arise.4. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.5. Let a copy of this decision be sent to appellant and CPIO.Sd/-(Padma Balasubramanian)Information CommissionerAuthenticated true copy :( L. C. Singhi )Addl. RegistrarAddress of parties :1. Shri Naresh Sethi, CPIO, PEC Ltd. Hansalaya, 15 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi110001.2. Shri K.J. Agarwal, Nuurrie Media Ltd. 442 The Ashok, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-21.3. Shri A..K. Mirchandani, Appellate Authority, PEC Ltd. Hansalaya, 15 BarakhambaRoad, New Delhi-110001.