Central Information Commission
Ramamurthy V.S. vs Ministry Of Tribal Affairs on 24 May, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOTLA/A/2023/120770
Shri Ramamurthy V.S. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Tribal Affairs
Date of Hearing : 22.05.2024
Date of Decision : 22.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.01.2023
PIO replied on : 13.02.2023
First Appeal filed on : 10.03.2023
First Appellate Order on : NA
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 12.05.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.01.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Vide your reply filed in WP (Civil NO 16217/2021(GM-RES) in para 7 of the reply it is stated (copy enclosed) "The contention of the petitioner is that there is no distinction between "Maleru" and "Maaleru" and both are one and same community, although "Maleru" is listed as Scheduled Tribes of Karnataka". In the petition, I have nowhere claimed that Maleru and Maaleru are the same. The petition was absolutely emphatic that petitioner belong to Maleru in English (in Kannada) मालेरु (in Hindi) but your office interpreted it as Maaleru and filed counter reply to hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Kindly provide me copies of the documents such as census and other records for the existence of Maaleru community and ळे मलेर community"
The CPIO vide letter dated 13.02.2023 replied as under:-
"This CPIO has no information to furnish. As per instruction of DoPT's O.M. No. 1/69/2007- IR dated 27.8.2008, "Only such information is required to be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the Public Authority or held under control of public authority. The CPIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret information, or to solve the Page 1 of 3 problems raised by the applicants, or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.03.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 10.05.2024 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 20.05.2024 has been received from the CPIO, C & LM Division, Ministry of Tribal Affairs and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
2. The appellant had file an RTI application dated 19.01.2023 (Annexure-
I) seeking information to provide copies of the documents such as census and other records for the existence of Maaleru community and (Maleru- in hindi) community.
3. The then CPIO had replied vide letter dated 13.02.2023 that the CPIO has no information to furnish (Annexure-II). As per instruction of DoPT's O.M. No.1/69/2007-IR dated 27.8.2008, "Only such information is required to be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the Public Authority or held under control of public authority. The CPIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret information, or to solve the problems raised by the applicants, or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions."
4. As per record, Maleru is listed at sl. 34 in the list of ST in Karnataka (as per the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 (no. 108 of 1976) dated 18.09.1976.
5. The appellant vide his RTI application dated 19.01.2023 sought for the census and other records for the existence of Maaleru community for which the CPIO has no information. In this regard it is pertinent to mention here that the state Government vide letter SWD 168 SAD 2015 dated 19.09.2020 informed that the State Government is in agreement with the study conducted by the TRI, Mysuru who opined that "Maleru" are Scheduled Tribe community and "Maaleru" are out casted Brahmins and furnished ethnographic study of the Mysuru. The same had already been furnished to the applicant, in response to his earlier RTI dated 27.01.2021 vide CPIO's letter No. 11030/13/2020-C&LM dated 4.2.2024 (copies as Annexure - III).
6. It is submitted that Ministry of Tribal Affairs is nodal Ministry for specification of a community as Scheduled Tribes under Article 342 of Constitution of India. However, the subject matter of issuance/verification of Scheduled Tribes certificates/social status rests with the concerned State Government/UT Administration.
Page 2 of 3Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Dhiraj Chandra Ray Dy. Director and Mr. S.G. Tripathy SO- participated in the hearing.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the relevant information has been duly furnished to the Appellant. They averred that the state Government vide letter SWD 168 SAD 2015 dated 19.09.2020 informed that the State Government is in agreement with the study conducted by the TRI, Mysuru who opined that "Maleru" are Scheduled Tribe community and "Maaleru" are out casted Brahmins and furnished ethnographic study of the Mysuru. The same had already been furnished to the applicant, in response to his earlier RTI dated 27.01.2021 vide CPIO's letter No. 11030/13/2020-C&LM dated 4.2.2024.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)