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

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