Central Information Commission
Shri Vasant Rayappa Chavan vs President’S Secretariat on 12 August, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01483 dated 12.8.2008
& No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000628 dated 3.6.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19 (3)
Appellant - Shri Vasant Rayappa Chavan
Respondent - President's Secretariat
Decision announced in both: 12.8.2009 Fact These are two appeals before us, received from Shri Vasant Rayappa Chavan of Mundhawa, Pune, Maharashtra.
File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/1483 By an application of 10.6.08 Shri Vasant Rayappa Chavan applied to the CPIO / Dy. Secretary, President's Secretariat, seeking the following information:
"Please let me know the status of my letter dated 23.5.2008 along with office Notes and movement of the letter."
The letter in question was a request to prosecute Shri R. Velu, Minister of State for Railways u/s 197 IPC. To this Shri Vasant Rayappa Chavan received a response from CPIO Shri Faiz Ahmad Kidwai, Dy. Secy. President's Secretariat dated 18.6.08 as follows:
"Your petition dated 23.5.08 was forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi on 6.6.08 (computer generated copy enclosed). You are, therefore, requested that for further necessary action in this regard, you may contact the department to whom your petitions were forwarded, since the matter pertains to their jurisdiction. You have also informed that the said letter was for your daughter's service in Railways."
Aggrieved by this response, Sh. Chavan moved an appeal before Ms. Rasika Chaube, Internal Financial Adviser & Appellate Authority on 13.6.08 repeating the following request:
1"Status of my letter dated 23.5.08 addressed to Smt. Pratibha Patil, Hon'ble President of India, along with notes and movement of the said letter."
In making this appeal, however, Shri Vasant Rayappa Chavan contended as follows:
"The CPIO, President's Secretariat has not understood the subject matter of my RTI application dt. 10.6.08 and has furnished the information which is contradictory, false, misleading which attracts Sec. 20(1)(2) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The CPIO, President's Secretariat has not transferred my RTI application as per provision of RTI Act 2005 and there is also a delay as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005."
Nonetheless, In her order of 31.7.08 Ms. Rasika Chaube upheld the decision of CPIO Sh. Kidwai and further clarified the matter as follows:
"The appellant was duly informed by the CPIO that his letter dated 23.5.08 was forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry of Railways on 6.6.08 vide letter dated 18.6.08 and a computer generated copy was also sent to him. Since for cases which need to be transferred to other nodal ministries there is no file or noting, the CPIO will not be in a position to provide the same. As regards permission to prosecute Shri R. Velu or Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav, Minister of Railways under section 197 IPC, the same is not information under the RTI Act 2005. The appeal stands dismissed."
From the above it would follow that there is then no file or noting, copies of which could be provided to appellant Sh. Chavan. Shri Vasant Rayappa Chavan has then moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"CPIO and Appellate Authority have not furnished the information as requested but furnished irrelevant, false and misleading information against my RTI application and against 1st Appeal which can be seen from the record and hence your honour kindly direct the President's Secretariat to furnish the information regarding status of my letter dt. 23.5.08. The appellate Authority and CPIO are liable to be penalized under Section 20(1) (2) of the RTI Act, 2005."2
In this case Shri Chavan has pleaded a case invoking the proviso of life and liberty as follows:
"The instant appeal is regarding my life and liberty. I have submitted all the necessary documents for TOP PRIORITY hearing as per CIC's direction."
FILE NO. CIR/WB/A/2009/628 In the meantime, Shri Chavan had also moved a request of 28.2.09 before the President's Secretariat, following on the order received from the President's Secretariat in the above case, seeking the following information:
"Please furnish the detail office notes, orders of the Hon'ble President of India in respect of my above request letter for appointment on the eve of visit to Maharashtra State."
To this he received a response from CPIO Sh. Faiz Ahmad Kidwai, Dy. Secy. Dated 23.3.09, as follows:
"Your request for meeting the President at Satara was received in Personal Cell of this Secretariat on 4.2.09. However, the appointment was not granted."
Not satisfied with this response Shri Chavan moved an appeal before First Appellate Authority Ms. Rasika Chaube on 1.4.09 reiterating his request in the initial application, as below:
"The status of my letter 2.2.09 with office notes and the orders of the secretaries and the Hon'ble President of India."
Upon this Ms. Chaube, Internal Financial Adviser, President's Secretariat has responded on 13.5.09, as follows:
"The CPIO obtained information from the Personal Cell of the President who handles the appointments of the President and it was informed to the appellant vide CPIO's letter dated 23.3.09 that the appointment was not granted. In this regard it is stated that appointments are given on a case to case basis depending on the merit of the request and also on the convenience of the Hon'ble President. Since there is no new ground which has been stated in the appeal, the appeal stands dismissed."3
Both appeals were heard together on 12.8.2009. Although arrangement had been made for videoconference, at the request of both parties the appeal was heard with the following parties present in person in the CIC chambers:
Appellant Sh. Vasant Rayappa Chavan Respondent Sh. F. A. Kidwai, Dy. Secy.
FILE NO. CIR/WB/A/2008/1483 Appellant Shri Vasant Rayappa Chavan submitted that his request is for prosecution of the then Minister of State for Railways under Sec 217 and 218 of IPC. Sec 217 provides for prosecution of a "public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture", whereas Sec 218 deals with a. "public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture" Obviously in the view of appellant such a request cannot be recommended by the Ministry of Railways itself. This authority lies with the Union of India. Hence his approach is to the President of India. In response CPIO Shri Kidwai submitted that this was a misreading of the authority of the President of India. Besides, the action taken by the President's Secretariat with regard to his original application, which was not an application under the RTI, has been intimated to appellant Shri Chavan in response to his request.
FILE NO. CIR/WB/A/2009/628 In this case CPIO Shri Faiz Ahmad Kidwai submitted that this request was referred to the Personal Cell of the President's Secretariat and the reply received from them has been intimated to appellant Shri Chavan. Shri Chavan on the other hand submitted that what he was seeking was the file noting including orders of the President since he was already aware that the appointment had not been granted. He also explained that in response to his request he had received visits from the Police in preparation for the President's visit to Satara, thus 4 establishing that some consideration had indeed been given, of which he wished to know the content.
DECISION NOTICE FILE NO. CIR/WB/A/2008/1483 The legal position with regard to executive action taken by the President is to be derived from Sec 197 of the CrPC 1973, which reads as follows:
197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.
(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-
(a) In the case of it person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
A Minister of the Union is a public servant. Under Article 53 of the Constitution of India "the executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution." In this case appellant Shri Vasant Rayappa Chavan had sought action taken on his request by the President's Secretariat. This information has been provided to him. If he is not satisfied with regard to the action taken, this is not an issue that falls within the jurisdiction of RTI Act and hence of this Commission. The legal position in this respect has been described above. Shri Chavan would be well advised to seek recourse to the CrPC in this regard. The appeal before us, however, is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
5FILE NO. CIR/WB/A/2009/628 In this case it is quite clear that what appellant Shri Chavan has sought is the file noting. During the hearing CPIO Shri Kidwai has clarified that there are no orders of the President on the subject. Even if this is so, appellant needed to be appropriately informed. CPIO Sh. Kidwai will, therefore, call for the record and examine the noting either on file or on the letter received and inform appellant Sh. Chavan of the contents or absence thereof within ten working days of the date of receipt of this decision notice. This appeal is, therefore, allowed. There will be no costs.
Both decisions announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 12.8.2009 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 12.8.2009 6