Central Information Commission
Kishore Kumar Sharma vs Indian Army on 10 May, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/IARMY/A/2020/138193
In the matter of:
Kishore Kumar Sharma
... Appellant
VS
1. Central Public Information Officer
Indian Army G-6, D-1 Wing,
Sena Bhawan, Gate No-04, IHQ of MoD (Army)
New Delhi - 110011
2. Central Public Information Officer
Army Welfare Education Society (AWES),
Building No. 202, Shankar Vihar,
Delhi Cantt - 110010
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 13/12/2019 CPIO replied on : 19/05/2020 First appeal filed on : 12/09/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 04/12/2020 Date of Hearing : 10/05/2022 Date of Decision : 10/05/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Lt. Col Neelesh Ingle, CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Whether Army Welfare Education Society comes under the jurisdiction of Indian Army? Provide a copy of the Act for the same.1
2. Whether officials of Indian Army can be deployed on the higher posts of Army Public Schools? Provide a copy of the relevant rules in this regard.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he had asked for general information and therefore, the same should be given by the respondent. The CPIO, Col Manisha Sharma vide written submissions dated 04.05.2022 submitted that the appellant had filed a RTI application on 13.12.2019 which was received in the RTI Cell on 17.12.2019. She further submitted that the case was processed with the agency and a reply was received on 23.12.2019 which was communicated to the appellant on 19.05.2020 and 08.09.2020. The CPIO further submitted that the FAA vide order dated 23.12.2020 directed the CPIO to obtain the reply from the agency and provide the same to the appellant. The same was complied with on 03.02.2021. She further summed up stating that Army Welfare Education Society is registered under Registration of Society Act XXI of 1860 as a private society and as per the decision of CIC, AWES and its institutions do not come under the ambit of the RTI Act.
The CPIO, RTI Cell submitted that the IPO was also returned as the AWES is not a public authority, and the same was not disputed by the appellant during the hearing.
Observations:
The Commission observed that the CPIO after the FAA's order had forwarded the same reply which mentioned that AWES is not a public authority. It is relevant to bring out the provisions of Section 2(j) and 2(f) of the RTI Act which clearly stipulates that:
Section 2(j) - "...."right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to--..........." Section 2(f) - "...."information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force..." Upon a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions it becomes essentially clear that the RTI Application of the appellant has to be construed in the spirit of the aforementioned provisions of the Act. It is emphasised therefore that even if the CPIO's claim of AWES not being a public authority is conceded, the fact remains that the appellant's RTI application was responded to by a public 2 authority. It was incumbent on the CPIO to provide such information which is available with them or which he can access from AWES. During the hearing the CPIO again stated that AWES is a private society and they do not have any information being a private body. In fact, the IPO too was returned on this ground of them not being covered under the RTI Act. The other aspect of the case is the nature of the RTI Application, which the Commission has observed to be largely outside the purview of the definition of 'information' under Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
Decision:
The appellant has sought for clarifications and the same is not covered within the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. In view of the same, the Commission is not inclined to provide any relief to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ$भ&मा'णत स)या*पत& त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3