Central Information Commission
Mra Murugan vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 29 March, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2015/000190/SB
Dated 29.03.2016
Appellant : Shri A. Murugan,
S/o Arumugam, No.12/21,
3rd Street Narayanasamy Thottam,
Greenways Road, Chennai600 028.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Home Affairs, NIII Desk,
4th Floor, NDCCII Bhawan, Jai Singh Road, New
Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 29.03.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.10.2014
CPIO's reply : 13.11.2014
First Appeal : 22.11.2014
FAA's order : 03.12.2014
Second Appeal filed on : 25.12.2014
ORDER
1. Shri A. Murugan filed an application dated 04.10.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home 1 Affairs (MHA), seeking information on seven points pertaining to a complaint dated 24.05.2014 against the functionaries of the Prajapitha Bharmakumarigal Eswariya Vishwa Vidhyalam, Rajasthan, including (i) officials of MHA who are incharge of conducting enquiry upon the complaints sent by the citizens of India with their hierarchy and the head of the department existing at present, (ii) officials i.e., Secretary of the Home Department, Cabinet Minister for Home, all other officials who are responsible for conducting enquiry, investigating the complaint, seizing the materials in connection with the unlawful functioning of the Prajapitha Bharmakumarigal Eswariya Vishwa Vidhyalam, Rajasthan as per his complaint dated 24.05.2014 and (iii) no. of days required by the MHA to take appropriate action against the offenders in his complaint in normal course and furnish the list of actions taken by MHA and CBI against the offenders.
2. The appellant filed the second appeal dated 25.12.2014 before the Commission on the ground that neither the CPIO nor the FAA has provided him information. The respondent prayed that maximum fine of Rs.25,000/ be levied on the respondent for suppressing and hiding the departmental actions. The appellant also stated that a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ should be awarded to him as he suffered mental agony due to denial of information. Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri A. Murugan was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Rina Guha, Deputy Secretary, MHA was present in person.
4. The respondent submitted that the information sought on point no.1 of the RTI application has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 24.11.2014. With regard to information sought in point nos. 2 to 7 of the RTI application, the respondent submitted that since Public order and Police are State subjects, therefore, the representation of the appellant was forwarded to the Rajasthan Government vide letter dated 05.08.2014 as it falls within its 2 purview. The respondent also stated that the information sought on point 7 of the RTI application cannot be provided as the same is premature because banning an organization is a process that is initiated only on the recommendations of the State Government concerned and subsequently inputs from Intelligence Bureau are received, thereafter the competent division of the MHA takes action and in this case no such recommendations were received from the State Government.
Decision:
5. The Commission after hearing the respondent and upon perusal of records observes that information on point no. 1 has been provided to the appellant. Information on point nos. 24 of the RTI application falls within the purview of the State Government concerned and information on point no. 7 cannot be provided as no action of banning an organization can be taken suomotu by the MHA and it is only done on the recommendations of the State Government. The Commission, however notes that no information has been provided on point nos. 5 and 6 of the RTI application by the respondent. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to provide specific replies to point no. 5 and 6 of the RTI application to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this decision.
6. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy 3 (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer 4