Central Information Commission
Milan vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 28 April, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/C/2016/900227
Dated 26.04.2017
Complainant : Mrs. Milan Dash,
B-102, Baramunda Housing
Board Colony, Bhubaneswar,
Orissa-751003.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North block, New Delhi-110 001.
Date of Hearing : 10.03.2017/ 26.04.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI application : 22.10.2015
Complaint : 22.04.2016
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking information on six points pertaining to the whereabouts of Shri Biswajit Dash together with his VISA and passport details.
2. The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that the Bureau of Immigration (BoI) to which her RTI application was transferred by the CPIO, MHA did not respond to her RTI application.
Hearing on 10.03.2017:
3. The complainant, Mrs. Milan Dash attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Shri Harminder Singh, DCIO, BoI was present in person.
CIC/SB/C/2016/900227 Page 1
4. The complainant submitted that no information was provided to her in response to her RTI application dated 22.10.2015.
5. The respondent submitted that the MHA had transferred the RTI application to the BoI vide letter dated 23.10.2015. The respondent further submitted that the complainant was informed vide letter dated 27.10.2015 that her RTI application was returned in original to the MHA since the subject matter does not pertains to the BoI/ Intelligence Bureau (IB).
Interim Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, notes that no reply in response to the RTI application was given to the complainant by the MHA. Since the respondent (MHA) was not present in the hearing, it could not be ascertained as to whether a reply in response to the complainant's RTI application was furnished to her. The Commission, thus, finds that information has not been provided by the respondent (MHA) to the appellant. Therefore, the CPIO, MHA is liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
7. The CPIO, MHA is hereby directed to submit an explanation both by post and through e-mail at [email protected] before the Commission, on or before 12.04.2017, explaining why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him.
8. The CPIO, MHA is further directed to appear before the Commission on 26.04.2017 at 01.15 pm. along with a copy of his written explanations. Shri Harminder Singh, DCIO, BoI is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon the CPIO, MHA.
9. The CPIO, MHA is also directed to inform if there is/ are other person(s) responsible for knowingly not providing complete information to the complainant, and if so, to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and to direct them to appear before the Commission on 26.04.2017 at 01.15pm along with their written explanations.
CIC/SB/C/2016/900227 Page 2 Hearing on 26.04.2017:
10. The respondents, Shri V. Vishwanathan, Under Secretary and CPIO, MHA and Shri Vigar Ahmed, were present in person.
11. The respondent submitted that vide letter dated 04.12.2015 complete information on point nos. (i) to (iii) of the RTI application has been furnished to the complainant. With respect to point nos. (iv) to (vi) of the RTI application, the respondent submitted that the application was transferred to the Joint Secretary, Consular, Passport and Visa Division (CPV), Ministry of External Affairs under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act. The respondent further submitted that a letter dated 04.12.2015 was duly sent to the complainant on her address of communication. The respondent submitted that the letter dated 04.12.2015 was returned undelivered on 15.12.2015.
Decision
12. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that the show cause notice was issued to the CPIO, MHA as in his absence, it could not be confirmed whether the information sought was provided to the complainant. The Commission notes that information was provided to the complainant vide letter dated 04.12.2015. The Commission further observes that the show cause notice issued against the respondent was on account of non-availability of the CPIO's reply on record, which led to a presumption that no reply in response to the RTI application has been provided to the complainant and the same could not be verified due to the absence of the respondent (MHA) during the earlier hearing. In view of this, since due information was provided to the complainant, the show cause notice issued to CPIO, MHA is hereby dropped.
13. The Commission also observes that point wise information, as available, has been provided by the respondent to the complainant.
CIC/SB/C/2016/900227 Page 3 However, this was not delivered to the complainant. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO, MHA to resend the letter dated 04.12.2015 to the complainant, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. With the above directions, the complaint is disposed of.
15. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer CIC/SB/C/2016/900227 Page 4