Central Information Commission
Shri T.K. Roy vs Department Of Legal Affairs on 15 January, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000802
Dated, the 15th January, 2010.
Appellant : Shri T.K. Roy
Respondents : Department of Legal Affairs
Hearing in this second-appeal was held on 12.01.2010 in the presence of both parties. Appellant was present in person, while the respondents were represented by Shri Nirmal Singh, Director & CPIO and Shri Jagdish Kumar, Section Officer.
2. Appellant, through his RTI-application dated 04.08.2009, addressed to the CPIO, Ministry of Law and Justice sought information on multiplicity of subjects such as which posts are not covered under the operation of Article 68 of the Constitution of India; provision of the Constitution under which constitutional functionaries could be burdened with non-constitutional functions by ordinary Acts of Parliament; a copy of the memoranda of procedure for appointment of Chief Justice and other Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court; file-notings relating to appointment of the present Chief Justice of India and other judges; names of the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts belonging to various caste and gender categories; exempted category of RTI-functionaries under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code and 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, among others.
3. CPIO, through his communication dated 07.09.2009, declined to disclose the information on the ground that it was not held by the public authority which he represented, i.e. the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs.
4. Appellate Authority, in his order dated 09.10.2009, noted that, "So far as transfer of request is concerned, in view of the provisions of Section 6(3) and clarification of the Department of Personnel and Training, request can be transferred to only one public authority. In the instant case two Public Authorities other than Respondent are concerned. Therefore, request of the Respondent (CPIO) to the Appellant to approach the Public Authority concerned directly is legally correct. The Appellant AT-15012010-12.doc Page 1 of 3 may request the Department of Justice and the Personnel & Training for requisite information / copy of documents."
5. During the hearing, CPIO reiterated that under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, it was for the applicant for information to file his petition before "the concerned public authority". It is only when such petitioner has filed the application before the concerned public authority that the provision of Section 6(3) comes into play. No petitioner is free to file his application under Section 6(3) itself with the expectation that the public authority before whom he had filed the application ⎯ regardless of whether such public authority was concerned with the subject of the queries or not ⎯ would in any case transfer his application to the other public authority. It was in this context that they had advised the appellant to file his RTI-application before the CPIO, Ministry of Justice where, according to the belief of the CPIO, Department of Legal Affairs, the information was likely to be held.
6. It was further pointed out on behalf of the respondents that appellant had included in his RTI-application not one but multiple and diverse subjects. According to the provision of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, an applicant was authorized to make only "a request" and not a multiplicity of them. From that standpoint as well, this RTI-application of the appellant deserved to be rejected.
7. I am in agreement with the submissions of the respondents. Commission in its Full Bench decision in Ketan Kantilal Modi Vs. Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC); Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01280; Date of Decision: 22.09.2009, had held that a requester for information was expected to file his application before the 'concerned public authority' and not before any public authority. If the authority before whom an applicant filed his RTI-application was not the concerned public authority, in that case this latter public authority was not obliged to act under Section 6(3) of the Act to transfer the request to another public authority. In this case, not only the CPIO before whom the application was filed, was not the concerned public authority, the queries were also related to multiple other public authorities. Respondents were, therefore, entirely within their right to decline to act on the appellant's RTI-application.
8. In Commission's decision in Rajendra Singh Vs. CBI; Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2007/00967; Date of Decision: 19.06.2009, it was held that the provision of Section 7(1) obligated an applicant to register in AT-15012010-12.doc Page 2 of 3 his RTI-application only one request or one type of request, which may have multiple facets. The Act doesn't entitle an applicant to include in his application queries on myriad subjects and then expect the CPIO to despatch each part of the multiple queries to the point where the information was known to be or likely to be held.
9. While examined against the touchstones spelt-out by the Commission in its above decisions and the provisions of the RTI Act, I find that the CPIO and the Appellate Authority have acted entirely within the provisions of law.
10. As there is no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Authority, it is upheld.
11. Matter disposed of with these directions.
12. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-15012010-12.doc Page 3 of 3