Central Information Commission
Mrparmatma Sharan Yadav vs Aryabhatta Research Institute Of ... on 17 May, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/KY/A/2016/000368
Appellant : Shri Parmatma Sharan Yadav
Sr . Engg. Assciate , ARIES
Manora Prak, Nainital - 263002
Public Authority : The CPIO
M/o Science and Technology
Aryabhatta Research Institute of
Observational Science (ARIES)
Manora Peak, Nainital -263002
Date of Hearing : 17.05.2016
Date of Decision : 17.05.2016
Presence:
Appellant : Shri Parmatma Sharan Yadav
CPIO : Shri Satish Kr. Information Scientist
FACTS:
I. Vide RTI application dated 16.10.2015, the appellant sought information on sole issue.
II. CPIO, vide its response dated 14.12.2015, denied to provided the information u/s 8 (1) (c & e) to the Appellant.
III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 21.12.2015, as desired information not provided.
IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide his order dated 02.05.2016, upheld the decision of CPIO.
V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 25.01.2016, are contained in the Memorandum of Second Appeal.
HEARING Appellant as well as respondent appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
Page 1 of 3DECISION It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 16.10.2015, sought information from the respondents on sole issue. Respondents, vide their response dated 14.12.2015, allegedly provided the required information to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 21.12.2015 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 02.05.2016, upheld the decision of CPIO. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the CPIO, vide his response dated 14.12.2015, denied the required information to the appellant by taking a plea under section 8(1) (c) & 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005. Further, learned FAA, vide his order dated 02.05.2016, disposed of the FA by upholding the views of CPIO.
3. It is needless to mention here that Section 8(1) (c) of the RTI Act 2005, deals with the exemptions from the disclosure of information which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature. Further, Section 8(1)(e) deals with the exemptions from the disclosure of information pertaining to fiduciary relationship. No doubt, FAA vide his order, referred to above, taken pleas under Section 8(1) (c) & 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005 but failed to justify his plea taken under 8(1) (c) & 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005.
4. Further, according to the Section 19(5) of the RTI Act 2005, the onus to justify the plea taken under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act 2005, lies on the shoulders of respondents only and not of the information seeker i.e. appellant. Thus, merely taking a plea by the respondents under any sub- clauses of the Section 8(1) of the RTI Act 2005, would not serve the real legislative intent for which it was legislated by Hon. Legislatures in the Parliament of India and also may not stand the judicial scrutiny, in case, the matter is challenged before the Hon. High Courts or Hon. Supreme Court of India.
5. The Commissioner heard the submissions made by appellant as well as respondents at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 16.10.2015, respondent's response dated 14.12.2015, FAA's order dated 02.05.2016, other material made available on record and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
6. By virtue of the position above, the Commission feels that it would be appropriate and even justify to direct the respondents to forward the appellant's RTI application dated 06.09.2015, to the concerned public authority of Hon. Parliament to seek their comments in respect of section 8(1) (c) of the RTI Act 2005 in the matter, in the first Page 2 of 3 instance. After receipt of their comments, the matter needs to be re-examined by the respondents in the matter as to whether Section 8(1) (c) & 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005 would be applicable in denying the required information to the appellant on his RTI application or not. Thereafter, the appellant may be suitably replied under the provisions of RTI Act 2005, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to this Commission. Ordered accordingly.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Krishan Avtar Talwar) Deputy Secretary The CPIO M/o Science and Technology Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Science (ARIES) Manora Peak, Nainital -263002 Shri Parmatma Sharan Yadav Sr . Engg. Assciate , ARIES Manora Prak, Nainital - 263002 Page 3 of 3