Central Information Commission
Shri Sunil Kumar Mahto vs Registrar General Of India (Mha) on 27 July, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00320 dated 18-11-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Complainant: Shri Sunil Kumar Mahto,
Respondent: Registrar General of India (MHA)
Decision announced 27.7.'09
FACTS
By an application of 30-6-2007 Shri Sunil Kumar Mahto of Ranchi, Jharkhand applied to the CPIO, MHA seeking the following information:
"1. Whether the Notifications issued by Government of India bearing No. 550 dated 13-5-1913 and No. 3563-J dated 8-12-1931 of Govt. of India are applicable or not. Certified copies of the same be given.
2. If these notifications were repealed, then a copy of said order may please be provided.
3. The list of Scheduled Tribes given in the 1931 Census Report of Bihar & Orissa.
4. The ground/ criteria for inclusion of Scheduled Tribes in the Constitution Order, 1950.
5. The reason for not including 'Kudami" caste of Bihar in Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950."
On not receiving a response Shri Sunil Kumar Mahto moved an appeal on 2-8-2007 before the Appellate Authority, MHA. On still not receiving a response Shri Sunil Kumar Mahto has moved second appeal before us. In response to our appeal notice CPIO Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, Dy. Secretary (A&B) MHA has in his letter of 13-2-2009 submitted as follows:
"His RTI application was transferred to Registrar General of India and Ministry of Tribal Affair vide this Ministry's Office Memorandum dated 26.7.2007. It is also stated that the undersigned is not the CPIO concerned with reference to the subject matter of the application, therefore, there was no question of denial of information on the part of the undersigned."
We have also received a response from CPIO Shri S.L. Jain, Dy. Director (SS Div.) O/f RGI through copy of a letter addressed to appellant Shri Sunil Kumar Mahto informing him as follows:
1"I had replied to you vide letter No. 28/1/2006-RTI (SS) dated 12.8.2007. WE have also answer to your appeal on 16.8.2007. A copy each of these letters are enclosed herewith for ready reference."
Together with this Shri S.L. Jain has attached copies of the letters sent by CPIO and Appellate Authority to appellant Shri Sunil Kumar Mahto. The letter of CPIO Shri S.L. Jain sent in response to RTI Application received by the RGI on 13-7-2007 was sent on 12-8-2007 and reads as follows:
"This office has no knowledge about the information sought by you in Para 1, 2, 4 & 5 of your letter. These refer to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs being the nodal Ministry in the subject of Scheduled Tribes.
As regards Para 3 it is to mention that the 1931 Census report does not content (sic) the list Scheduled Tribes of Bihar, Orissa or any other states. In Table XVII "Race Caste or Tribe" of Census of India 1931, Vol. II, caste/ tribe wise population distribution as returned in the census has been given. The 1931 census report is in public domain and its reprint is available in market for sale. This publication is also available in the ORGI's Library for consultations and reference of data users and researchers. This library is located at Sewa Bhavan, North Wing, 1st Floor, R. K. Puram, New Delhi. The working hours of this Library is 9.30 AM to 5.50 PM on the working days. The facility of providing photocopy (ies) of desired page (s) of published literatures is also available on payment basis. You are, therefore, advised to visit the ORGI's Library to obtain desired information."
In response to the first appeal Shri Ishwar Chand Agrawal, Appellate Authority, O/o RGI has sent Shri Sunil Kumar Mahto the following response:
"The information sought by you relates to Scheduled Castes in relation to Ordinance 1950. This subject relates to Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. It is out of the purview of this office."
The appeal was heard through videoconference on 27-7-2009. The following are present.
Appellant (at NIC Studio, Ranchi) Shri Sunil Kumar Mahto Respondents Dr. N. K. Ghatak, Joint Director.
Shri R. K. Gupta, Section Officer, Shri S.L. Jain, Dy. Director & CPIO.
Shri S. S. Saha, Deputy Director.
2Whereas Shri S.L. Jain submitted that such information as was held by the office of RGI, namely, the response to question No.3 has been provided. With regard to the laws passed in British times and what became of them he submitted that the office of RGI has no inkling, let lone information.
Dr. N.K. Ghatak, Jt. Director, Ministry of Tribal Affairs submitted copies of two letters of 23-7-2009 one of which is addressed to Shri Sunil Kumar Mahto seeking to answer his questions at points No.4 and 5. However, with relation to points 1 and 2 he submitted that the Ministry has no record of these laws and their fate. He, however, did affirm that these laws are no longer valid.
Appellant Shri Sunil Kumar Mahto confirmed having received the responses cited but submitted that he had not received a response to questions 1 and 2.
DECISION NOTICE As affirmed by Jt. Director, Ministry of Tribal Affairs the two laws of which copies have been sought by appellant Shri Sunil Kumar Mahto should have been responded to by informing him what Shri Ghatak has now contended in the hearing. He will, therefore, send a response to Shri Sunil Kumar Mahto forthwith on this issue and not later than 10 days from the date of issue of this decision notice. This appeal is, therefore, allowed to that extent.
On the question of failure to reply within the time limit mandated u/s 7 (1) we find that although the office of Registrar General of India has responded in time and has also endorsed a copy to the Jt. Director and CPIO, Ministry of Tribal Affairs to whom also CPIO Shri S.K. Bhatnagar in his letter of 13-7-2009 has also endorsed a copy, CPIO Shri N.K. Ghatak, Ministry of Tribal Affairs has submitted that these letters have not been received. The first indication of the RTI request came only from the appeal notice issued by the Central Information Commission on 28-1-2009 and transferred to the 3 Ministry of Tribal Affairs by both CPIO, MHA and CPIO, O/o RGI, to which CPIO responded straightaway. There is therefore no ground for imposing penalty.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 27-7-2009 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 K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 27-7-2009 4