Central Information Commission
Mrvijay Kumar Garg vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 20 January, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi110067
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/000674/SB
Dated 20.01.2016
Appellant : Shri Vijay Kumar Garg,
F49, Vishal Colony, Nangloi, Delhi110 041.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer
Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New
Delhi110 001.
Date of Hearing : 20.01.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.09.2013
CPIO's reply : 23.10.2013
First Appeal filed on : 01.11.2013
FAA's order : 10.01.2014
Second Appeal filed on : 17.02.2014
ORDER
1. Shri Vijay Kumar Garg filed an application dated 26.09.2013 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking information on seven issues/situations relating to plight of men who are impleaded in vexatious cases filed by women including (i) whether the women are intentionally blackmailing innocent men with the help of the Police and what rights do men have in order to escape from such blackmailing, (ii) when will a law be made that can protect men against false complaints made by women, (iii) whether there is any provision for anticipatory or interim bail for rescuing the victimized male beforehand if there is an apprehension of any sort of blackmailing by the women, etc.
2. The appellant filed second appeal before the Commission on 17.02.2014 on the ground that the CPIO has not provided the information and the FAA has issued the orders without affording him an opportunity of hearing.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Vijay Kumar Garg was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri V.K. Rajan, Dy. Secretary was present in person.
4. The respondent submitted that the appellant was informed vide letter dated 23.10.2013 that he has not sought any specific information as available with the MHA and has given some issues/situations in his RTI application on which he sought the opinion/views/legal interpretation of the CPIO which does not come under the definition of "information" specified under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the application does not come within the ambit of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore no information can be furnished by this Ministry. Decision:
5. The Commission agrees with the submission of the respondent that the information sought does not come within the ambit of "information" as per Section 2(f). Thus, the Commission holds that there is no need to interfere with the order of the FAA dated 10.01.2014.
6. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer