Central Information Commission
Ramesh Dr vs Cabinet Secretariat on 18 May, 2023
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CABST/A/2022/639337
Shri Ramesh DR ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Cabinet Secretariat
PIO
Dy. Director
Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology
PIO
Deptt. of Space, Bengaluru
Date of Hearing : 15.05.2023
Date of Decision : 18.05.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.02.2022
PIO replied on : 16.03.2022, 04.04.2022
First Appeal filed on : 12.04.2022
First Appellate Order on : 18.04.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 20.07.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated16.02.2022 seeking information on 25 points:-Page 1 of 6
Etc. The PIO vide online reply dated 16.03.2022 intimated as under:-
Based on inputs received from Cabinet I and Cabinet II sections of Cabinet Secretariat, the application was already transferred to MeitY and D/o Space on 28.02.2022 and 02.03.2022 respectively for response as they are best placed to consider the request for information on Cabinet matters based on the position if the matter is complete or over under first proviso to Section 8(1)(i) or any other provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, the information in respect of Cabinet Secretariat, as per inputs received, are as follows:
Point No.1 MeitY. The application has already been transferred to the CPIOs of MeitY as well as D/o Space.
Point No.2 As per the extant guidelines contained in the Section 1, Para-11 of Handbook on writing Cabinet notes The proposal(s) sought to be placed before the Cabinet/Committees of the Cabinet, should either be the concern exclusively of the sponsoring Department, or it should primarily concern the Department in terms of the AoB Rules. In cases, where it does not exclusively concern the sponsoring Department, the concurrence of Departments whose business is impacted, must be obtained. The Handbook on writing cabinet notes is available in the Public domain and can be accessed at www.cabsec.gov.in Guidelines, Handbook on Cabinet Notes.Points No.3 and 4 Page 2 of 6
The amendment regarding allocating the Semi-Conductor Laboratory, Mohali to MeitY was approved by the President on 07.02.2022 with immediate effect. Before that date, the entry relating to Semiconductor Complex Limited, Mohali was with D/o Space under AoB Rules, which was omitted vide the same amendment.
Hence, the application was transferred to D/o Space for providing information, if any, directly to the applicant. The updated AoB Rules (as on 07.02.2022) are available on the website of Cabinet Secretariat.
The AoB Rules prior to that date are also available on the website of Cabinet Secretariat at the path www.cabsec.gov.in, Archive, Allocation of Business Rules, 2022, Complete AOB Rules (10/01/2022).Points No.5 to 8, 11 to 16, 21, 22, 23, 24
The application has already been transferred to MeitY as well as D/o Space.Points No. 9, 17, 18, 19, 20
The application has already been transferred to MeitY as well as D/o Space.
Point No.10 Already transferred to MeitY for a response. However, it is intimated that, in the course of amending AoB Rules, the draft notifications (bilingual) were got vetted by Legislative Department, M/o Law and Justice on 21.01.2022 by this Secretariat.
Point No.25 In exercise of the powers conferred under Article 77(3) of the Constitution of India, AoB Rules have been framed by the President. Amendment to these Rules is also done by the President.
The CPIO/Dy. Director, Ministry of Electronics & IT, vide letter dated 04.04.2022 replied as under:-Page 3 of 6
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appealsto Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Electronics & IT and Department of Space.
The FAA, Cabinet Secretariat vide order dated 18.04.2022 stated as under:-
After examination of the original application and reply furnished by the CPIO, it is observed that, out of total 25 points, information with respect to 5 points as available in the records of this office was provided to the applicant. As far as information about consultation process adopted by the concerned Ministries/ Departments before moving the Cabinet Note for consideration, the RTI application was transferred to MeitY and Department of Space. The appeal for not receiving information related to such issues may lie with the concerned First Appellate Authorities.
The FAA/Jt. Secretary, Department of Space vide order dated 25.04.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
The FAA, Ministry of Electronics and IT vide letter dated 22.04.2022 passed a speaking order is as under:-Page 4 of 6
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant remained absent despite being served the hearing notice in advance.
The Respondent represented by Dr. Gautami Sudarsan, Deputy Secretary & CPIO, Department of Space, Shri Satya Prakash Chaudhary, Under Secretary & CPIO (Cabinet Secretariat), Shri D.S. Rawat, Under Secretary & CPIO (MeitY) and Shri Kamlesh Khare, APIO/SCL, MeitY, participated in the hearing through video conference. The Respondent submitted that appropriate replies on the basis of available records has been provided to the Appellant.
A written submission has been received from Shri P Victor Albuquerque, Deputy Secretary & CPIO, MS (O&M), MeitY, vide letter dated 03.05.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Appellant, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
A written submission has been received from Shri Satya Prakash Chaudhary, Under Secretary & CPIO, (Cabinet Secretariat), vide letter dated 08.05.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Appellant, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:Page 5 of 6
A written submission has been received from Dr. Gautami Sudarsan, Deputy Secretary & CPIO, Department of Space, vide letter dated 11.05.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Appellant, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
Decision:
Perusal of the facts of the case at hand reveals that the matter was appropriately answered by the PIO in terms of the mandate laid down under the RTI Act. The Appellant has chosen not to buttress the case nor appeared for the hearing and in these circumstances, the Commission finds it a futile exercise to prolong adjudication in the matter at hand.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 6 of 6