Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Amitabh Thakur vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 28 July, 2022

                                 के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली,
                               ली New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.

CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105789                    CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105767
CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105790                    CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105765
CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105791                    CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105769
CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105792                    CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105772
CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105793                    CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105775
CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105794                    CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105762
CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105795                    CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105778
CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105764                    CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105798

Shri Amitabh Thakur                                            ...   अपीलकता /Appellant
                                 VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs                             ...   ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing                        :    28.07.2022
Date of Decision                       :    28.07.2022
Chief Information Commissioner         :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.

  Case      RTI Filed    CPIO reply        First appeal       FAO          2nd Appeal
   No.         on                                                         received on
 105789    11.12.2020    28.12.2020        28.12.2020     28.01.2021      08.02.2021
 105790    11.12.2020    24.12.2020        28.12.2020     28.01.2021      08.02.2021
 105791    11.12.2020    24.12.2020        28.12.2020     28.01.2021      08.02.2021
 105792    11.12.2020    24.12.2020        28.12.2020     28.01.2021      08.02.2021
 105793    11.12.2020    28.12.2020        28.12.2020     28.01.2021      08.02.2021
 105794    11.12.2020    24.12.2020        28.12.2020     28.01.2021      08.02.2021
 105795    11.12.2020    28.12.2020        28.12.2020     28.01.2021      08.02.2021
 105764    11.12.2020    28.12.2020        28.12.2020     28.01.2021      08.02.2021
 105767    11.12.2020    28.12.2020        28.12.2020     28.01.2021      08.02.2021
 105765    11.12.2020    24.12.2020        28.12.2020     28.01.2021      08.02.2021
 105769    11.12.2020    28.12.2020        28.12.2020     28.01.2021      08.02.2021
 105772    11.12.2020    28.12.2020        28.12.2020     28.01.2021      08.02.2021
 105775    11.12.2020    28.12.2020        28.12.2020     28.01.2021      08.02.2021
 105762    11.12.2020    24.12.2020        28.12.2020     28.01.2021      08.02.2021
 105778    11.12.2020    24.12.2020        28.12.2020     28.01.2021      08.02.2021
 105798    11.12.2020    28.12.2020        28.12.2020     01.02.2021      08.02.2021

                                                                              Page 1 of 4
 Information sought

and background of the case:

(1) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105789 (2) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105790 (3) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105791 (4) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105792 (5) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105793 (6) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105794 (7) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105795 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.12.2020 and the CPIO/Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide letter dated 24.12.2020/28.12.2020 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.12.2020. The FAA/Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide order dated 28.01.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(8) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105764 (9) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105767 (10) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105765 (11) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105769 (12) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105772 (13) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105775 (14) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105762 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated11.12.2020 and the CPIO/Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide letter dated 24.12.2020/ 28.12.2020 replied as under:-
Page 2 of 4
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.12.2020. The FAA/Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide order dated 28.01.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(15) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/105778 (16) CIC/ MHOME/A/2021/105798 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.12.2020 and the CPIO/Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide letter dated 24.12.2020/28.12.2020 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.12.2020. The FAA/Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide order dated 28.01.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant represented by his wife Dr. Nutan Thakur participated in the hearing through video conferencing. She reiterated the averments made in the Page 3 of 4 Second Appeal. She submitted that the Respondent has not furnished copies of all the complaints received by the Respondent against the Appellant from Shri Sanjay Sharma, Ms. Urvashi Sharma and Ms. Pushpa Anil from time to time. Furthermore, she maintains that though the Respondent has claimed that they have provided all the complaints and action thereof along with notings and correspondence in Shri Amitabh Thakur's personal file but there could be many such complaints which have not been put in the personal file.
The Respondent represented by Shri Anant K Saran, Director (Police) Ministry Home Affairs, participated in the hearing. He submitted that MHA maintains personal files of IPS officers and requisite information as per record has already been provided to the Appellant. Moreover, information comprising more than 250 pages has been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
Perusal of records and submissions made by parties reveals that the Respondent has duly provided copies of the documents available with them. Voluminous information comprising more than 250 pages from the personal file of the Appellant has been provided to him. As regards the contention of the Appellant that there could be many such complaints which have not been put in the personal file, the Commission is of the opinion that CPIO cannot be expected to create any information and collate documents which are not part of their existing record.
In light of the above, the Commission is of the considered view that information from available official records as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the Act.
In the given circumstances, since the information stands disseminated, no further cause of action subsists under the RTI Act.
With the above observations, the above mentioned Second Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4