Central Information Commission
Ms. Renduchintala Rajlaxmi Sharma vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi), ... on 23 March, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. - CIC/WB/C/2009/000121 dated: 17.03.'09
Right to Information Act- Section 18(1) (b)
Complainant: Ms. Renduchintala Rajlaxmi Sharma
Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Nagpur, Maharashtra.
Decision announced 23.3.'10
Facts:-
The Commission has received a complaint from Ms Renduchintala Rajlaxmi Sharma of Nagpur, Maharashtra that her request under RTI Act, 2005 submitted to the Central Public Information Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation, Nagpur, through which CPIO was requested to inform her regarding time & date when drugs, chemicals, metals, minerals were mixed in her eatable and her drinking water by FBI USA together with other similar information by collecting the same from FBI, USA, Queen Elizabeth U.K., Germany, Russia, G-8 Countries and all other countries, to enable her to seek compensation, has not been responded to, even though the same was duly submitted on dated 09.06.2008.
Admitting the complaint of Miss Sharma under Section 18(1) (b) of RTI Act, 2005 the commission served a notice on 26.02.2010 on CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, Nagpur for furnishing comments on the complaint. In response, the CPIO Supdt. of Police, CBI, ACB, Nagpur has submitted his comments on 08.03.2010 with a copy endorsed to complainant. The CPIO has informed the Commission that, since the request dated 09.06.2008 of the complainant which was received on 10.06.2008 was neither under the provision of Right to Information Act, 2005 as no stamp charges/ fees was affixed/ paid with the application, nor did the application contain any relevant information and was not supported by any documents, and also because it was not relevant to any matter under the purview of CBI, the same was filed after analyzing the complaint in detail and proper application of mind. He has further informed that Ms. Sharma, thereafter, filed 1st appeal before the 1st appellate authority on 24.06.2009 along with purported stamped application which was disposed of by 1 the appellate authority through his reply dated 16.09.2009. The CPIO has made the Commission aware of the habit of the complainant for sending "vague complaints narrating various incidents which happened are happening under the sky" by enclosing a copy of similar complaints received from her with the comments.
Decision From a perusal of the facts available in the record, it would appear, that the application of the complainant indeed did not qualify as an application under RTI Act, 2005 as no fee was paid by the complainant as per the provision of Right to Information (Regulation of Fee & Cost) Rule, 2005. It has also been observed that information that was purportedly sought by her through her application dated 09.06.2008 could not conceivably be held by or under the control of the CBI, and this has already been conveyed to appellant by the appellate authority of the department in response to her appeal u/s 19(1). In light of the above facts present complaint is not sustainable and is hereby dismissed.
Announced this twenty-third day of March 2010. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Wajahat Habibullah (Chief Information Commissioner) 23.03.2010 Authenticated true copy, additional copies of order shall be supplied against application and payment of the charge prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar Joint Registrar.
23.03.2010 2