Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 27 March, 2023
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/2021/635830 CIC/MHOME/A/2021/635831
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/629018 CIC/MHOME/A/2022/612101
CIC/MHOME/A/2021/628981 CIC/MHOME/A/2021/649004
CIC/MHOME/A/2021/635250 CIC/MHOME/A/2021/629289
CIC/MHOME/A/2021/635253 CIC/MHOME/A/2021/629291
Shri Varun Krishna ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO, DS(Admin), Ministry of Home Affairs ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
2. PIO, ACP, East District
3. PIO, UT Division, Ministry of Home Affairs
4. PIO & DS(DP&ANL), MHA
5. PIO & DS(Services), MHA
6. PIO & UTS Section, MHA
7. PIO, Delhi Police Hdqrs.
Through: Shri Vishwajeet Gupta - US, Shri R K
Singh - US and Smt. Leena Sarin-SO,
ACP R B Lakra, Insp. Rajesh Kumar, ASI Madan
Mohan - PHQ, ACP J N Bharadwaj, SHO Satya
Prakash and HC Bijender, Delhi Police
Date of Hearing : 24.03.2023
Date of Decision : 27.03.2023
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
635830 16.01.2021 21.01.2021 02.06.2021 - 26.07.2021
05.02.2021
Page 1 of 18
02.03.2021
&
05.03.2021
629018 20.04.2021 12.05.2021 20.05.2021 - 08.07.2021
628981 20.04.2021 12.05.2021 20.05.2021 16.06.2021 08.07.2021
18.06.2021
&
21.06.2021
635250 15.05.2021 21.05.2021 11.06.2021 - 29.07.2021
635253 24.04.2021 12.05.2021 20.05.2021 - 29.07.2021
635831 22.02.2021 16.03.2021 04.05.2021 07.06.2021 26.07.2021
612101 24.07.2021 03.08.2021 08.09.2021 01.11.2021 26.02.2022
649004 24.07.2021 03.08.2021 08.09.2021 07.10.2021 18.10.2021
629289 10.04.2021 12.05.2021 12.05.2021 02.06.2021 09.07.2021
629291 10.04.2021 12.05.2021 12.05.2021 02.06.2021 09.07.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/635830 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.01.2021 seeking information on the following 04 points:-
The CPIO/Dy. Secretary(Admn.) vide letter dated 21.01.2021 intimated as under:-
The CPIO/Asstt. Commissioner of Police, Police Hdqrs vide letter dated 05.02.2021 transferred the RTI application to the PIO, East District. Further, the CPIO/Asstt.Page 2 of 18
Commissioner of Police, Police Hdqrs vide letter dated 02.03.2021 intimated as under:-
The CPIO/Addl. DCP-I, East District vide letter dated 05.03.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.06.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 02.06.2021 forwarded the first appeal to the concerned FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission dated 15.03.2023 has been received from the Respondent-MHA reiterating the reply already sent to the Appellant as follows:
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/629018 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.04.2021 seeking information on the following 04 points:-Page 3 of 18
The CPIO/Dy. Secretary(DP&ANL) vide letter dated 12.05.2021 intimated as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.05.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 20.05.2021 forwarded the first appeal to the concerned FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission dated 15.03.2023 has been received from the Respondent- PIO/Director(Delhi and DP),MHA reiterating the reply already sent to the Appellant as follows:Page 4 of 18
The order dated 16.06.2021 passed by the FAA, MHA enclosed with the submission reveals the following:
(3) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/628981 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.04.2021 seeking information on the following 04 points:-Page 5 of 18
The CPIO/Dy. Secretary (DP&ANL) vide letter dated 12.05.2021 intimated as under:-
The CPIO/Dy. Secretary(Service) vide letter dated 18.06.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.05.2021. The FAA vide online order dated 16.06.2021 held as under:-
The CPIO/Addl. DCP-I, East District vide letter dated 21.06.2021 stated as under:-Page 6 of 18
The action taken report enclosed with the reply is self explanatory and reveals that since no cognisable offence was made out in the jurisdiction of PS New Ashok Nagar, Non-Cognisable Report No. 47/20 was lodged. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission dated 13.03.2023 has been received from the Director, Services/CPIO, MHA stating as under:
(4) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/635250 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.05.2021 seeking information on following 05 points:-
The CPIO/Dy. Secretary(DP&ANL) vide letter dated 21.05.2021 intimated as under:-Page 7 of 18
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.06.2021 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission dated 15.03.2023 has been received from the Respondent- PIO/Director(Delhi and DP),MHA reiterating the reply already sent to the Appellant as follows:
(5) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/635253 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.04.2021 seeking information on following 05 points:-
The CPIO/Dy. Secretary(DP&ANL) vide letter dated 12.05.2021 intimated as under:-Page 8 of 18
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.05.2021 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission dated 15.03.2023 has been received from the Respondent- PIO/Director(Delhi and DP),MHA reiterating the reply already sent to the Appellant as follows:
(6) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/635831 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2021 seeking information on following 05 points:-Page 9 of 18
The CPIO/Dy. Secretary(DP&ANL) vide letter dated 16.03.2021 intimated as under:-
The CPIO/Dy. Secretary(Services) vide letter dated 13.04.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.06.2021.The FAA/Jt. Secretary, MHA vide order dated 07.06.2021 stated as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission dated 15.03.2023 has been received from the Respondent- PIO/Director(Delhi and DP),MHA reiterating the reply already sent to the Appellant as follows:Page 10 of 18
(7) CIC/MHOME/A/2022/612101 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.07.2021 seeking information on following 06 points:-Page 11 of 18
The CPIO /Dy. Secretary(Admn.) vide letter dated 03.08.2021 forwarded the RTI application to AS(UT), MHA.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.09.2021. The FAA/Jt. Secretary, MHA vide order dated 01.11.2021 stated as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission dated 13.03.2023 has been received from the Director, Services/CPIO, MHA stating as under:
(8) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/649004 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.07.2021 seeking information on the following 06 points:-Page 12 of 18
The CPIO /Dy. Secretary(Coord-II) vide letter dated 24.08.2021 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO/Dy. Secretary (DP& ANL) & the CPIO, UT Division, MHA.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.09.2021. The FAA/Jt. Secretary, MHA vide order dated 07.10.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission dated 13.03.2023 has been received from the Director, Services/CPIO, MHA stating as under:
(9) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/629289 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.04.2021 seeking information on following 04 points:-Page 13 of 18
The CPIO/Dy. Secretary (Admn), MHA vide letter dated 12.05.2021 intimated as under:-
2. Central Registry Section which receives dak in the Ministry of Home Affairs and Office of Union Home Secretary, have informed that above mentioned letter has not been received by them.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.05.2021. The FAA/Jt. Secretary, MHA vide order dated 02.06.2021 held as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission dated 01.03.2023 has been received from the Dy. Secretary(Admn.)/CPIO, MHA reiterating the responses sent to the Appellant as under:Page 14 of 18
The Respondent has further specif specified the following action history of the RTI request:
(10) CIC/MHOME/A/2021/629291 The he Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.04.2021 seeking information on following 04 points:-Page 15 of 18
The CPIO/Dy. Secretary (Admn), MHA vide letter dated 12.05.2021 intimated as under:-
2. Central Registry Section which receives dak in the Ministry of Home Affairs and Office of Union Home Secretary, have informed that above mentioned letter has not been received by them.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.05.2021. The FAA/Jt. Secretary, MHA vide order dated 02.06.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 01.03.2023 has been received from the Dy. Secretary(Admn.)/CPIO, MHA reiterating the responses sent to the Appellant as under:
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondents from respective departments are present for the hearing, while the Appellant has sent an email dated 22.03.2023 stating that he would not be able to attend the hearing due to professional pre-occupation. He has simply contended that in all of the aforementioned cases, information has been obstructed.
Decision:
On perusal of records of the aforementioned second appeals, it is noted that the cases arise out of the Appellant's complaints to the MHA and in two cases to the Secretariat of the Vice President about alleged irregularities in the functioning of the DCP Office of East Delhi Police. Since the public authorities approached by the Appellant were not the actual custodian of information nor is it mandated under the RTI Act for the PIO to initiate action on the basis of complaints, the respective RTI applications/representations were transferred to the relevant public authority viz. the actual custodian of information. Since the complaints filed by the Appellant and the cause of action related to the East Delhi Police, the matters had been accordingly transferred to them.Page 16 of 18
The public authorities where the Appellant had filed the complaints through his emails were not the concerned public authority to address Complaints filed by him. and hence were not the actual custodian of information. This aspect has been addressed by this Commission laying down clearly as to who can be considered the actual custodian of information under the RTI Act and held responsible for dissemination of any specific information vide a Full Bench decision of this Commission, dated 22.09.2009 in case no. CIC/AT/A/2008/01280 titled Ketan Kantilal Modi vs Central Board of Excise and Customs as under:
"48. ....reasoning that an application for information will have to first stand the test of Section 6(1) in order to be validly accepted by the CPIO concerned for processing for disclosure of information. In case the application is not filed before the 'concerned public authority'/CPIO, it shall not qualify to be a valid request for information.
49. The expression "concerned public authority" implies that that public authority should be holding the information which the petitioner sought as per Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, which states that right to information means "the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority...". Section 6(1) ⎯its expression' concerned public authority' ⎯becomes clearer when read in conjunction with Section 2(j) of the Act.
56. A public authority which does not hold or is not related to an information sought by a petitioner, will not be obliged to provide an answer to the petitioner only for the reason that that public authority was the Apex body or the nodal office of others subordinate public authorities. .."
Emphasis supplied Subsequently vide decision dated 29.07.2016 the Commission while deciding R S Gupta vs. L G office had held as follows:
".....The offices of President, Vice President, Prime Minister, Governors, Lt. Governors and Chief Ministers are not legally obliged under RTI Act to entertain RTI applications seeking information unrelated to it, or not held or controlled by these high offices...."
Emphasis supplied The Apex Court in the decision dated 09.08.2011 in Central Board Of Secondary Education & Anr. vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. had also specifically discussed this aspect as under:
"..35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act Page 17 of 18 does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant."
Emphasis supplied Thus clearly the public authorities who had been approached by the Appellant regarding his complaint with respect to the East Delhi Police, acted well within the premises of the RTI Act in transferring the matters to the actual custodian of information.
The other important and common aspect in the aforementioned appeals is that the Appellant has filed RTI applications seeking relief which is either in the nature of grievance redressal or demanding action to be taken on allegedly errant public officials of departments which are not directly under their jurisdiction. The Appellant did not seek information as defined under the RTI Act, but sought action to be taken by public officials on his complaints, who were not directly responsible for the act complained about. Such a plea is not maintainable under the RTI Act since the Act provides for only dissemination of information held by the public authority, and not for initiation of action nor for grievance redressal.
A decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Arvindlal Ambalal Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. in Special Civil Appeal No. 12223/2015 decided on 31.07.2015 is very pertinent on this issue, which reads as follows:
"...the prayers prayed for in this petition cannot be granted. There cannot be any action in a matter like the present one by the respondent authorities pursuant to an RTI application, at the instance of a person like the present petitioner. At the most, under the RTI proceedings, the petitioner can ask for some information, but, cannot demand any action.."
Emphasis supplied Thus in the aforementioned appeals records indicate that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly provided by the concerned Respondent. Considering the fact that information held by the public authority stands duly disseminated to the Appellant, no cause of action subsists under the RTI Act for further adjudication in these appeals.
The appeals are disposed off accordingly.
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 18 of 18