Central Information Commission Mrkamal Bhasin vs Ministry Of Power on 10 August, 2016 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066 F. No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001593/SSYA Date of Hearing : 21.07.2016 Date of Decision : 10.08.2016 Appellant/Complainant : Shri Kamal Bhasin, Delhi Respondent : CPIO, Power Finance Corp. Ltd. Delhi & Ministry of Power, New Delhi Through: Shri Jagdeep Kishore, Advocate Anil Kumar Yadav, DM(CS) Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Relevant facts emerging from appeal: RTI application filed on : 20.12.2011 PIO replied on : 20.01.2012 First Appeal filed on : 17.02.2012 First Appellate Order on : 11.04.2012 Information sought and background of the case: 1. The appellant had filed an RTI application no. KB/RTI3/2011 dated 201211 with the respondent public authority (PFCL) duly administered and controlled by Ministry of Power, Govt. of India. In the RTI application dated 20.12.2011, the appellant has extracted the following observation from PFC's Annual Report for the year 200708: "In case of one of the borrower, the dispute regarding recovery of interest amounting to Rs. 46.19 crores as on 31.3.007 has been settled for Rs. 18.97 crores with the approval of respective Board of Directors". The amount so settled has been accounted for as the income for the year following the provisions of the clause 9.5 of the Accounting Standard 9." In context of the aforesaid observation, the appellant sought the disclosure for information on 7 queries of his application under the RTI Act, 2005. 2. This was responded to by the CPIO vide letter dated 20.01.2012 requesting the appellant to deposit a fee of Rs. 1,084/ for supply of 542 pages of documents. The appellant was reluctant of depositing this fee and vide letter dated 27.1.2012 requested the CPIO to let him know the name of the borrower in dispute; nature of dispute and some other information. Relevant facts which emerged during hearing: [25.10.2012] 3. During the hearing, it transpired that vide letter dated 09.02.2012 the CPIO had asked the appellant to give him atleast 05 days time for fixing a convenient date for inspection etc. However, the appellant chose to file the first appeal dated 17.02.2012 which was decided by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 11.4.2012 offering inspection of the relevant records to the appellant. The Respondent submitted that Grid Corporation of India (GRIDCO), (a PSU of the Orissa Government) did not owe an amount of Rs.46.10 crores as on 31.3.2007, as mentioned in the Annual Report extracted above. PFC held negotiations with Gridco and settled the matter for Rs. 18.97 crores. 4. After hearing the parties at some length, the Commission directed as follows: "...The appellant, however, is not fully satisfied with the response of PFC. He is keen to inspect the relevant records and to take extracts therefrom. In the premises, it is ordered that the appellant may be given inspection of the relevant records on a mutually convenient date and time and to take extracts there from, free of cost, subject to a maximum of 100 pages. If he needs additional pages, he will pay as per rules. This order may be complied with in 05 weeks." Relevant facts emerging during hearing: 22.04.2013 5. Subsequently, the Commission received a representation dated 17.12.2012 from the Appellant stating therein that he did visit the office of the PFC and was given access to a bundle of documents which did not make any sense to him. He stated that he is specifically interested in obtaining a copy of the minutes of the meeting of Board of Directors in the matter at hand but the information was not provided to him. 6. In view of the above, the Commission held as follows: ".....CPIO is hereby directed to produce the agenda note and the minutes of BoDs' meeting in regard to GRIDCO matter. The matter is adjourned to 06.05.2013 at 1530 hrs for production of aforesaid documents." Relevant facts emerging during hearing: 06.05.2013 7. When the matter was listed for hearing, as scheduled on 06.05.2013, the following order was passed by the Commission: ".....Adv. Kishor