Central Information Commission
Deepak Kumar vs Central Information Commission on 31 August, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/CICOM/A/2019/142667
In the matter of:
Deepak Kumar
... Appellant
Central Public Information Officer,
RTI Cell, Central Information Commission,
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 02/08/2018 CPIO replied on : 25/10/2018 First appeal filed on : 05/10/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 23/10/2018 Second Appeal Filed on : 13/11/2018 Date of Hearing : 31/08/2021 Date of Decision : 31/08/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: S.K Chitkara, Deputy Registrar and CPIO, present over VC at CIC Information Sought:
The appellant in his second appeal has stated that he has not received satisfactory information on points 4 and 5 of the RTI application, which are stated below:
4. Provide certified copy of the application dated 15/10/2016 and 03/04/2018 submitted by the appellant.
5. Provide copy of complete Order file in respect of hearing held in respect of File No.CIC/CNISF/A/2017/314372 and Dy. No.122455 dated 10/04/2018.
Grounds for Second appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
1Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO. He pressed for a copy of the Madras High Court order which was relied upon by the CPIO. He also contested that action was not taken in respect of point no. 5 which was not correct.
The CPIO agreed to provide the copy of the Madras High Court order. Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that then CPIO, A.K Sharma vide letter dated 25.10.2018 had replied in respect of points no. 1 & 2 as not available. In respect of rest of the points, i.e 3 to 5 the then CPIO replied as follows:
"3. No such information is available in the appeal file no. CIC/CNISF/A/2017/314372.
4. A copy of the RTI and reply of CPIO can't be provided to the appellant in terms of Madras High Court decision on the writ petition no. 26781/2013 and MP No 1/2013 Registrar Vs CIC New Delhi.
5. No action has been taken on your letter dated 03.04.2018 received in the Commission vide Diary no. 122455 dated 10.04.2018."
The FAA concurred with both the CPIO's reply. However, he mentioned that the then CPIO's reply on points no. 3 to 5 was not sent to the correct address of the appellant. Therefore, CPIO was directed to send the same. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P.No.26781 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 in the matter of The Public Information Officer, The Registrar (Administration), High Court, Madras. Vs. The Central Information Commission, & B.Bharathi vide decision dated 17.09.2014 held as follows:
24. Insofar as query (iv) is concerned, we fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his own complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right, thinking that the High Court will preserve his frivolous applications as treasures/valuable assets. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined 2 under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, we reject the contention of the second respondent in this aspect.
The Commission finds the reply of the CPIO in respect of points no. 4 & 5 appropriate and justified. The Hon'ble Madras High Court decision is applicable in respect of point no. 4. Moreover, a categorical reply was given in respect of point no. 5.
Decision:
The CPIO shall provide a copy of the Madras High Court order as desired by the appellant, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. As far as point no. 5 is concerned, an apt reply was given and no action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3