Central Information Commission
Mrkumar Alok Ranjan vs Ministry Of Information & Broadcasting on 5 August, 2016
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2015/002073
Appellant : Shri Kumar Alok Ranjan, New Delhi
Public Authority : M/o Information & Broadcasting,
New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 28th July, 2016
Date of Decision : 5th August, 2016
Present
Appellant : Not present
Respondents : Shri Somvir Singh, Under Secretary-present
at CIC
RTI application : 01.06.2015
CPIO's reply : 30.06.2015
First appeal : 07.07.2015
FAA's order : 06.06.2016
Second appeal : 13.07.2015
Information Commissioner : Manjula Prasher
ORDER
1. The appellant, Shri Kumar Alok Ranjan, through his RTI application sought following information: (A) origin, functions & mandate of Central Monitoring Services (CMS) at Aya Nagar, New Delhi, Jammu and Kolkata; (B) terms & conditions under which CMS and its staff were transferred to National Technical Research Organization (NTRO); (C) relevance of reports generated by CMS; and (D) procedure to close down CMS.
2. The CPIO informed the appellant that Central Monitoring Centre was set up in Shimla way back during the World War II to monitor anti-war propaganda, carried out by various international radio programmes. Later, the Centre was shifted to its new complex at Aya Nagar, New Delhi in 1981 and renamed as Central Monitoring Services (CMS). It was brought under the direct control of M/o Information & Broadcasting in 2003. In addition to other works, CMS was 1 monitoring content aspect of TV channels to look into the violation of Programme & Advertising Code under Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995. CMS activities (excluding content monitoring) were transferred to NTRO with effect from 01.04.2005. Electronic Media Monitoring Centre (EMMC) was set up on 09.06.2008 under the M/o Information & Broadcasting to monitor the content aspect of TV channels and report of violations of Programme and Advertising Code. Dissatisfied, the appellant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and, on not receiving any response from him, he filed the present appeal before the Commission stating that the CPIO had not furnished "adequate" information with regard to points (B), (C) & (D) of the RTI application.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him. The respondents stated that the FAA had disposed of the appellant's appeal vide order dated 06.06.2016, pursuant to which the CPIO vide letter dated 22.07.2016 had transferred the points (B), (C) & (D) of the RTI application to the M/o Home Affairs under whose control Central Monitoring Centre and Central Monitoring Services functioned. The respondents stated that the appellant's first appeal could not be disposed of within the stipulated time period as the file concerning the same was inadvertently tied up with another file. The respondents regretted the delay in disposing of first appeal. On being asked as to why they did not transfer the RTI application in the first instance, the respondents explained that initially they did not know that information sought in said points pertained to the M/o Home Affairs.
4. The Commission notes that the respondents had provided the information to the appellant which was available in their records and that with regard to the information which was not present in their records, they had transferred the appellant's RTI application to the public authority concerned (viz., M/o Home Affairs). The disclosure requirement on the part of the respondents in the present matter thus stands completed. The respondents are, however, cautioned to be more careful in future while dealing with RTI matter and to adhere to the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act. The appellant now, if he so wishes, may 2 pursue the matter with the M/o Home Affairs to whom his RTI application [ with regard to points (B), (C) & (D)] had been transferred by the respondents. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Shri Kumar Alok Ranjan C-663, J J Colony Shani Bazar, Hastsal Road Uttam Nagar New Delhi 110 059 The Central Public Information Officer M/o Information & Broadcasting Under Secretary (BC-I) A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi 110 001 The First Appellate Authority M/o Information & Broadcasting Under Secretary (BC-I) A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi 110 001 3