SIC-K-Comp/141/2011 - State Information Commission

Jammu and Kashmir State Information Commission
(Constituted under the Right to Information Act, 2009)
Wazarat Road, Jammu. Tel/Fax: 0191- 2520937
Old Assembly Complex, Srinagar. Tel/Fax No. 0194-2484269
…….
File No.: SIC-K-Comp/141/2011
Decision No: 200 /SIC of 2011/IC
Dated: 28- 12 – 2011
In the matter of:
Complaint filed by
Shri Fayaz Ahmad Fayaz R/o: Neel Chidool, Banihal.
VS
Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Forest Department.
This is a complaint filed by Shri Fayaz Ahmad Fayaz before this Commission on 23-07-
2011 against the PIO, Forest Department Civil Secretariat, J&K for denying them the information
invoking Section 8(b) of the State RTI Act, 2009. The brief facts of the case are as under:
“The complainant filed an RTI application before Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Forest
Department, Civil Secretariat on 07-06-2011 seeking following information:
“1. copy of proposal submitted to PSC vide No.FST/Fish/1/96-III dated: 22- 10-
2010; 2. Criteria (Recruitment rules) adopted for framing the proposal.
3. Reservation Act (SRO 294 read with 144) followed, if not, reasons thereof,
for not recommding RBA candidate at S.No. 04 as per SRO.”
The PIO of the Forest Department has passed the order on 14-07-2011 which is well
within the statutory time. The action of the PIO in promptly passing the order is appreciated.
However, it is seen that the PIO’s order is incomplete in as far as not informing the information
seeker about the right to file 1 st appeal and the full particulars of the 1 st appellate authority. The
PIO has denied information on point No. 1 i.e. copy of proposal submitted to PSC vide
No.FST/Fish/1/96-III dated: 22- 10-2010 on the plea that in view of Section 8(b) the information
is exempted from disclosure. The complainant has pleaded before this Commission vide his
Complaint dated: 04-10-2011 that the reply with regard to Reservation Act is misleading. The PIO

has stated that the proposal has been forwarded in light of SRO 194 of 1994 but the information
seeker i.e. the complainant has stated that the Resevation Act i.e. SRO 294 of 2005 has come
into force on 21-10-2005. The complainant has, therefore, raized the genuine query that PIO be
directed to intimate the information seeker how SRO 126 of 1994 was applied when there was
latest SRO 294 of 2005 applicable. It is further alleged that this SRO was made applicable to few
candidates who were declared eligible because of application of SRO 294 of 2005. Hence the
Commission is of considered opinion that the complainant’s case is genuine that he was given
incorrect and incomplete information to this point. The PIO is directe to give the reasons to the
information seeker why in his case SRO 294 of 2005 was not made applicable, thus, denying him
of being considered.
Similarly, with regard to PIO’s denial of informationon to Pt. No. 1 after invoking Section
8(b) of the Act has been challenged by the information seeker/Complainant. The information
seeker/complainant has submitted that Section 8(b) is not applicable to the information as asked
for by him. The PIO has made a submission before this Commission that Hon’ble High Court has
ordered for keeping statusquo. However, no copy of such order has been produced before this
Commission. The mandate of Section 8(b) is that “such information should not be disclosed which
is expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which
may constitute contempt of Court. No such express direction has been produced before this
Commission in this case. Hence the PIO is directed to provide the information on this point to the
information seeker/complainant within 15 days from the receipt of this order under intimation to
this office.
The complaint is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(G. R. Sufi)
Chief Information Commissioner, J&K