Central Information Commission
Om Prakash Kashiram vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 14 March, 2022
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2020/125078
CIC/MHOME/A/2020/125092
CIC/MHOME/A/2020/126130
CIC/MHOME/A/2020/136718
Shri Omprakash Kashiram ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO, Director (Citizenship) ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi
2. PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs
Foreigner Division, New Delhi
3. PIO, Director (ANL & Delhi Police)
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi
4. PIO, Dy. Secy. (Law & Order)
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi
5. PIO, Director (S-JK)
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi
6. PIO, Director (Pres)
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi
7. PIO, US(RTI), Ministry of Home Affairs
New Delhi
8. PIO, Dy. Secretary, President Secretariat
New Delhi
Through: Shri P C Meena -DS(Leg.); Shri
AbhishekSahay; Dr. Manoj Kumar Jain - Dy.
Director(Registrar General of India); Shri R K
Sharma - CPIO, Rashtrapati Bhawan; Shri
KabirajSabar-CPIO(J&K Division); Ms. Ipsita Paul
and Shri V S Rana
Page 1 of 9
Date of Hearing : 14.03.2022
Date of Decision : 14.03.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
125078 27.01.2020 - 09.02.2020 - 31.08.2020
125092 21.12.2019 - 08.02.2020 - 31.08.2020
126130 20.01.2020 04.03.2020 08.03.2020 23.07.2020 08.09.2020
136718 13.02.2020 - 24.06.2020 - 25.11.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/125078 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated27.01.2020 seeking information on 09 points, including the following:-
Etc. CPIO/Dy. Secretary vide letter dated 04.02.2020 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, Director (Citizenship) for providing the information.
Having not receivedinformation from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.02.2020 which was not adjudicated.Page 2 of 9
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submission dated 08.03.2022 has been received from the CPIO, Foreigners Division (Citizenship Wing) which reveals that the Director(Citizenship) had replied vide letter dated 31.03.2020 and the First Appeal had also been adjudicated vide order dated 14.10.2020, copies whereof have been annexed with the submission which has also been sent to the Appellant. The PIO had replied stating:You have not asked any specific information. Furthermore, you have sought clarification instead of seeking specific information. This information are not covered under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, sought information may be treated as 'NIL. However, for details please visit MHA website: "https//indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in".
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant chose not to attend the hearing while the Respondents are heard through video conference and reiterated their contentions, as already noted above.
Decision:
Perusal of the records of the case reveal that considering the nature of queries, no legal infirmity is found in the reply furnished by the Respondent. Hence no intervention is deemed necessary in this case.
(2) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/125092 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.12.2019 seeking information on the following 03 points:-
The PIO/Director (OCI/LTV) vide letter dated 24.01.2020 transferred the Appellant's queries to the different divisions of the MHA, viz. the UT Division, Page 3 of 9 Internal Security Division and the Citizenship Wing, Foreigners Division for providing information.
Further, the CPIO/Dy. Director, Office of the Registrar General, India, MHA vide letter dated 13.02.2020 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.02.2020 which was not adjudicated.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submission dated 11.03.2022 has been received from the MHA- Director(Delhi and DP)/CPIO stating that since the queries raised by the Appellant were hypothetical in nature, no information from existing recordsof the UT Division could be provided.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant chose not to attend the hearing while the Respondents are heard through video conference and reiterated their contentions, as discussed hereinabove.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the records of the case, it is noted that action as mandated under the RTI Act has been undertaken by the Respondent, by transferring the RTI Application to the actual custodian of information. The Commission is convinced with the Respondent's contention that the Appellant has not sought information, as defined under the RTI Act. Hence no further adjudication is required in this case, under the provisions of the RTI Act.
(3) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/126130 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.01.2020 seeking information on 09 points, including the following -Page 4 of 9
Etc. The PIO/Director(S-JK) vide letter dated 04.03.2020 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.03.2020. The FAA/Joint Secretary(JKL) vide order dated 23.07.2020 held as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 5 of 9
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submission dated 07.03.2022 has been received from the CPIO, Department of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh Affairs [10-11] which reveals the following facts:
Written submission dated 08.03.2022 has been received from the CPIO &Director(Pers. & Coord.), MHA, relevant extracts whereof are as under:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant chose not to attend the hearing while the Page 6 of 9 Respondents are heard through video conference and reiterated their contentions, as noted hereinabove emphasising that information as available on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant.
Decision:
Perusal of the records of the case and contentions noted during the course of hearing reveal that information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act and held by the Respondent had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act. No further cause of action exists for further adjudication in this case, under the provisions of the RTI Act.
(4) CIC/MHOME/A/2020/136718 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.02.2020 before the President's Secretariat seeking information on the following 04 points:-
The PIO/Dy. Secretary, President's Secretariat vide letter dated 19.02.2020 transferred the RTI application to CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs. Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.06.2020 which was not adjudicated. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO, President's Secretariat vide letter dated 28.02.2021, which reveals that a reply dated 11.03.2020 had been sent by the PIO and the First Appeal had also been decided vide order dated 07.10.2020 on the following lines:Page 7 of 9
A written submission has been received from the PIO/Dy.
/Dy. Secy. OLW,vide
OLW letter
dated 10.03.2022 enclosing a copy of FAA's order dated 22.09.2020.
Another written submission dated 11.03.2022 has been received from the Foreigners Division, Citizenship Wing, MHA, which reveals that the following response had been sent vide letter dated 14.0 14.08.2020:
Another written submission dated 11.03.2022 has been received from the O/o Registrar General, India, relevant extracts whereof are as under:Page 8 of 9
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through audio conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. While the Appellant chose not to attend the hearing, the Respondents are heard through video conference and reiterated their contentions, as noted hereinabove pointing oout ut the replies furnished to the Appellant.
Decision:
Perusal erusal of the records of the case and contentions noted during the course of hearing reveal that information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act and held by the Respondent had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act.
In the given circumstances,, no further adjudication is warranted with respect to this case, under the provisions of the RTI Act.
The appeals are thus disposed off with no further direction.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
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 9 of 9