Central Information Commission
Ashutosh Khanna (Advocate) vs General Administration Department Ut ... on 29 April, 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/GADJK/A/2023/610624
Shri Ashutosh Khanna (Advocate) ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
General Administration Department, UT of J & K
Date of Hearing : 23.04.2024
Date of Decision : 26.04.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.11.2022
PIO replied on : 06.12.2022
First Appeal filed on : 07.12.2022
First Appellate Order on : 2712.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 28.02.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.11.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"1. For the efficient working of field staff of forest & police department at District level, kindly inform the Warrant of Precedence level of Senior scale IPS/IFS officers at district level with counterpart officers of Additional secretarios to government in KAS Selection Grade & other district lovel officers (oxcept Deputy Commissioner).
2. GAD UT JK vide Govt. order no. 795-JK (GAD) of 2021 dated: 26-08-2021 hereby ordered that the APR's of District Level Officers including SE & EE having co-terminus jurisdiction with that of the Deputy Commissioners shall also be initinted by the Deputy Commissioner concerned. Whether, this GAD order is applicable to district level officers of Forest department for initiating APR by the Deputy Commissioner concerned. Applicability of this GAD order to district level officers of Forest department would amount to disobey of Hon'ble SC Order (contempt of Court).
3. As per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in titled case T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v/s Union of India & Ors, administrative control of forest staff at district level is within forest department, as often forest officials have to take decisions which are against the wishes of district administration. Kindly inform whether administrative control of forest staff at district level is within forest department or with Deputy Commissioner Page 1 concerned. Administrative control of forest division outside forest department would amount to disobey of Hon'ble SC Order (contempt of Court).
4. As per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in titled case T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v/s Union of India & Ors, administrative control of forest staff at district level is within forest department, As often forest officials have to take decisions which are against the wishes of district administration, Kindly inform whether GAD UT JK vide Govt. order no. 794-
JK (GAD) of 2021 dated: 26-08-2021 is applicable on forest offices at district level. (This order gives administrative control of forest offices at district level to the Deputy Commissioner concerned). Applicability of this GAD order to district level officers of Forest department would amount to disobey of Hon'ble SC order (contempt of Court).
The CPIO, General Administration Department vide letter dated 06.12.2022 replied as under:-
"With reference to your RTI application under Right to Information Act, 2005, the information sought by you at Point Nos. 5(2), 5(3) & 5(4) doesn't fall under the definition of "Information" as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 wherein interrogative queries like "Why", "How" "Whether" etc have not been defined as "Information". Further, that only such information cam be supplied under the RTI Act that is available and existing and is held by the Public Authority as per the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 7526/2009 (CNSE & Anr. V/s Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Ors)."
The CPIO, General Administration Department transferred the instant RTI Application to CPIO, Home Department, PIO, Hospitality & Protocol Department and PIO, Forests, Environment & Ecology Department under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act with a request to furnish the information sought at point No. 5(1) of the RTI Application.
PIO, Hospitality & Protocol Department vide letter dated 20.12.2022 furnished information as under :
May kindly refer your RTI Application dated 25-11-2022 transferred by Central Public Information Officer, General Administration Department under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 vide O. M. No GAD- ADMORTI/169/2022-09-GAD dated 06-12-2022 and received in the department on 08-12-2022. The reply/ response in respect of Point No. 5(1) of your RTI application is given below:-
"The Warrant of Precedence of the UT of J&K, issued by the Hospitality & Protocol Department is restricted to the communications and sitting arrangements made only for the Govt. and Ceremonial functions and ceremonies it has nothing to do with the Warrant of Precedence followed in other official matters such as official meetings etc. A copy of WoP issued by the Hospitality and Protocol Department vide Government Order 06-JK(H&P) of 2021 dated 06-04-2021 is also enclosed for information of the RTI Page 2 applicant, wherein the footnote given specifies the use of WoP only for the Govt. and Ceremonial occasions."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.12.2022. The FAA, General Administration Department vide order dated 27.12.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 18.04.2024 has been received from the PIO, Hospitality & Protocol Department and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Health Assistant, GAD and Mr. Sudhir Bali- PIO, Hospitality & Protocol Department- participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him within stipulated time frame. He further stated that the enclosure mentioned in letter dated 20.12.2022 has not been provided along with the aforesaid letter.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly furnished to the Appellant. Furthermore, queries raised by the Appellant were clarificatory in nature and do not fall under the ambit of information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. They further stated that information sought at point No. 5(1) has been duly furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 20.12.20222. The PIO provided the enclosures of the reply dated 20.12.2022 during course of proceedings.
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 Page 3 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 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)