Central Information Commission
Mr.Kishanlal Mittal vs Lok Sabha Secretariat on 27 September, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000065
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 27 September 2012
Date of decision : 27 September 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Kishanlal Mittal,
1305, Dhruv, Ashok Van,
Borivali East, Mumbai - 400 066.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Lok Sabha Secretariat,
Parliament House/Annexe,
New Delhi - 110 001.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Kushal Sarkar, CAPIO
(ii) Shri Ajay Sood, Deputy Secretary
(iii) Shri K. Sona, US
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant was present in the Mumbai studio of the NIC. The Respondents were present in our chamber. We heard their submissions.
3. In his RTI application, the Appellant had sought a number of information regarding all those Members of Parliament who had tendered resignation from their membership including those whose resignation had not been accepted. CIC/SM/A/2012/000065 The CPIO had provided all the available information except those regarding the 13 MPs whose resignation was still pending consideration of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Although the Appellant claims to have sent a first appeal, the Respondents, with the help of documents maintained by the Lok Sabha Secretariat, contended that no such first appeal had been received.
4. The Respondents argued that the second appeal should not be considered at all since they did not receive the first appeal. On the other hand, the Appellant argued that he had sent the first appeal in time and did not receive any response. Needless to say, he has enclosed a copy of the said first appeal with his second appeal. There are two issues before us for consideration. The first one relates to the first appeal. If the Appellant sends the appeal but the Appellate Authority does not receive it for any reason, the Appellant cannot be held responsible. On the other hand, in the absence of the first appeal, the public authority is also deprived of an opportunity to consider the issue before the CIC hears it. There cannot be any quick solution to such problems. Normally, it is expected that when a first appeal is sent by post, it should be ordinarily delivered. However, there can be instances when due to various reasons the first appeal may not be delivered to the first Appellate Authority. In our view, this alone cannot be a reason for preventing the Appellant from approaching the CIC in second appeal. We do not agree with this argument that merely because the first appeal was not received by the first Appellate Authority, the Appellant should be denied the opportunity of filing a second appeal. Once a citizen sends a first appeal, he presumes that it would be disposed of within a certain time period as prescribed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. After the expiry of that time limit, he has every right to file CIC/SM/A/2012/000065 a second appeal. As far as the first Appellate Authority in particular and the public authority in general are concerned, they lose nothing in the process of filing the second appeal. No order is passed by the CIC without giving an opportunity of hearing to the CPIO and/or the Appellate Authority. Therefore, whatever they have to say in support of the decision of the CPIO, they have every opportunity to do so during the hearing of the second appeal. Therefore, we do not find much merit in the arguments of the Respondents.
5. The second issue is regarding the various documents including the correspondence concerning the resignation offered by 13 MPs, now pending consideration. The Appellant has sought to know the reasons for the competent authority not accepting these resignations including the copy of the file noting and the correspondence made in this regard. If indeed there is any such correspondence or file noting, ordinarily that should be disclosed. We would like the CPIO to find out if there is any such record in existence. In case, there is any such record including correspondence and file noting, the CPIO shall disclose the same subject to the exemption provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. We direct the CPIO to do so within 15 working days of receiving this order.
6. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner CIC/SM/A/2012/000065 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/000065