Central Information Commission
P P M Ashraf vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 2 February, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DOP&T/C/2019/603304
P P M Ashraf ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Under Secretary (RTI) & CPIO,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi- 110001 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/02/2019
Date of Decision : 01/02/2019
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07/09/2018
CPIO replied on : 27/01/2019
First appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Authority order : NA
2nd Appeal/Complaint received : 20/02/2019
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 07.09.2018 seeking information as under:-
"When Members of Constituent Assembly tooth and nail resisted the EXECUTIVE APPOINTS JUDICIAL OFFICERS as Commission Heads and JUDICARY in order to appease executive for CORNERING the POSITIONS, in order to JUSTIFY the MOTION Dr Ambedkar assured as under Constituent Assembly Debates Constituent Assembly Debates On 24 1 May, 1949 Part-II Hon. Dr B R Ambedkar. The judiciary decides cases in which the Government has, if at all, the remotest interest, in fact no interest at all. The judiciary is engaged in deciding the issue between citizens and very rarelybetween citizens and the Government. Consequently the chances of influencing the conduct of a member of the judiciary by the Government are very remote, and my personal view, therefore, is that the provision which are applied to the Federal Public Services Commission have no place so far as the Judiciary is concerned. Besides there are very many cases where the employment ofjudicial talent in a specialised form is very necessary for certain purposes. Take the case of our Friend Shri Varadachariar. He has now been appointed members of a Commission investigating incometax questions Though AOB TOB Procedure was the RIGHT PROCEDURE for PRESIDENT to ACT and incase of DEADLOCK referring the DEADLOCK to PARLIAMENT the AGENTS and SUBAGENTS appointed by him EXPOSED Hon President to the risk of being impeached by PLACING MATTER before COURTS. The JUDICIARY SUPPORTED the EXECUTIVE in MANY CASES where president pro tempore framed private rules and regulations without sanction of parliament. The OM of DOPT attached speaks about a few HEADS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES who complied with AOB TOB Procedure .Please inform us the names of these HEADS as REMAINING HEADS can be treated by PARLIAMENT as HEADS who exposed Hon President to the risk of being impeached for initiating action under article 61 of constitution."
The CPIO provided detailed reply to the complainant on 27.01.2019. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 27.01.2019. FAA's order dated 19.02.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Grounds for the Complaint:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Bikesh Kumar Barnawal, SO & Representative of CPIO and Inder Pal, ASO present through intra-video conference.2
The Complainant stated that the instant matter pertains to suo motu disclosure regarding the definition of government as prescribed under the RTI Act but none of the public authorities have complied with the said mandate of the RTI Act.
The CPIO submitted that a detailed factual reply was provided to the Complainant.
Decision The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the RTI Application does not seek any specific information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the grounds of the Complaint and the contentions of the Complainant during the hearing were also rather incoherent and no specific relief under the RTI Act was sought for.
In view of the foregoing observations, no action is warranted in the matter.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date P P M Ashraf 3