Central Information Commission
Nutan Thakur vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 4 September, 2020
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ऱी, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीऱसंख्या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/MHOME/A/2018/157114
CIC/MHOME/A/2018/157113
CIC/MHOME/A/2018/157110
CIC/MHOME/A/2018/157875
CIC/MHOME/A/2018/163426
CIC/MHOME/A/2018/163429
CIC/MHOME/A/2018/163428
CIC/MHOME/A/2018/163427
CIC/MHOME/A/2018/163421
Dr. Nutan Thakur ...अपीऱकताा/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/Dy. Secretary, Establishment,
M/o Home Affairs, New Delhi ...प्रततिादी/Respondent
PIO/M/o Home Affairs (IS-1) Division, VIP
Security Unit Room No.08, 2ndFloor MDC
National Stadium, New Delhi
PIO/ Ministry Of Home Affairs (PMA CELL).
North Block, New Delhi- 110001
PIO/ Ministry of Home Affairs (CS Division)
2nd Floor MDC National Stadium India Gate,
New Delhi- 110001
PIO/Ministry Of Home Affairs (NIA Desk,
CTCR Division) North Block, New Delhi-
110001
PIO/ Ministry Of Home Affairs (CIS
Division/CIS-IV Desk) North Block, New
Page 1 of 14
Delhi-110001
PIO/Ministry Of Home Affairs CS
Division/M&G Section, 2ndFloor, MDC
National Stadium,India Gate New Delhi -
110001
PIO/Ministry Of Home Affairs (CIS
Division/CIS-III Desk),North Block, New
Delhi-110001
Through: Sh. S K Jha, Dy. Secretary
(Administration,)-MHA; Sh. Rajendra
Chaturvedi- Director, Sh. Anant Kishor
Sharan - Director
Date of Hearing : 01.09.2020
Date of Decision : 03.09.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same in all of the above matters, the above
mentioned cases are clubbed together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO First FAO Second
Nos. replies Appeals appeal
157114 14.04.2018 31.05.2018 01.06.2018 Nil 14.09.2018
23.06.2018 04.07.2018 08.07.2018 Not "
157113
Mentioned
23.06.2018 26.06.2018 26.06.2018 16.07.2018 "
157110
[not attached]
157875 23.06.2018 06.07.2018 29.07.2018 Nil 17.09.2018
163429 08.08.2018 28.08.2018 03.09.2018 01.10.2018 16.10.2018
163428 03.08.2018 28.08.2018 03.09.2018 01.10.2018 "
163427 31.07.2018 14.08.2018 26.08.2018 19.09.2018 "
163426 03.08.2018 20.08.2018 26.08.2018 Nil "
09.07.2018 01.08.2018 12.08.2018 Not "
163421
Mentioned
(1) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/157114
Information seeking and background of the case:
Appellant filed a RTI application dated 14.04.2018 seeking information on 4
points, as follows:
Page 2 of 14
1. As per the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) records, who are the officers
made responsible to handle the official twitter handle of MHA @HMOIndia
with the title Office of the Home Minister of India.
2. Who are the officers who actually operate this twitter handle?
3. Kindly provide the copy of the file belonging to MHA related with the
creation/formation of the above twitter handle in June 2014.
4. Kindly provide the number of tweets made by this Official tweet on monthly
basis since the creation of this twitter handle.
[Queries reproduced verbatim]
PIO/Dy. Secy. (Establishment) - Sh. V K Rajan, vide letter dated 31.05.2018
informed the Appellant that they have transferred her application to Director
(Coord.I), MHA u/s 6(3) and provided a copy of OM F No. A-43020/02/2018
Ad. I dated 22.02.2017 titled operationalisation of Twitter sewa.
Meanwhile the Appellant had filed a First Appeal dated 01.06.2018, on not
having received a reply from the PIO. The First Appeal was not adjudicated and
hence, the aggrieved Appellant approached the Commission with the instant
Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Perusal of records of the case reveal that the same RTI application dated 14.04.2018, containing the aforementioned set of identical queries about the official twitter handle of MHA has been decided by a predecessor Bench of this Commission vide an order in case no. CIC/MHOME/A/2018/143904, dated 29.11.2019.
Decision:
Since the queries raised and information sought have already been decided by the above mentioned decision of the Commission, this Bench is barred from fresh adjudication of the same issue, by operation of the principle of res judicata.
(2) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/157113 Information seeking and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 23.06.2018 seeking information on 3 points:
1. Kindly provide the list of persons who have been provided various security covers (like X, Y, Z, Z plus etc or any other security cover) from time to time by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) since 01/01/2010.
2. Kindly also provide the number of security persons and other paraphernalia provided under each of these security covers, as per the norms fixed by MHA.Page 3 of 14
3. Kindly provide the total monthly remunerations given to these security personnel who have been assigned to various persons with different security covers by the Ministry of Home Affairs during each month of the given period, as per the records of the MHA.
[Queries reproduced verbatim] Sh. Rajendra Chaturvedi-PIO/US, MHA (IS-I Division), VIP Security Unit vide letter dated 04.07.2018 replied to the Appellant stating that responsibility of providing security to an individual lies primarily with State Govt/UT concerned where the individual is resident. The respondent further pointed out that on the basis of threat assessment, categorised security is provided, in accordance with "Yellow Book", details, which can not be disclosed. The categorised security cover is periodically reviewed and accordingly security provided is withdrawn/upgraded/downgraded/continued. The number of protectees is not static and varies from time to time, but it is normally between 300-400. Further details about names of the protected persons, documents related to provision of security etc are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g), 8(1)(j) and Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Information about expenditure incurred on security was denied clarifying that it was difficult to ascertain the exact amount, since the expenses are accounted for under respective budget heads of different security agencies and data in this regard is neither compiled nor available centrally.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.07.2018. FAA vide order dated July 2018 provided information about the number of protected persons under various security covers and upheld the reply of PIO with respect to remaining queries.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submission dated 25.08.2020 has been received from Sh. Rajendra Chaturvedi-PIO, MHA (IS-I Division), VIP Security Section stating the following:
i. copy of second appeal has not been received with notice of hearing ii. reiteration of the facts mentioned above about PIO's reply dated 04.07.2018 and FAA's order dated 25.07.2018. By another written submission dated 27.08.2020, the same respondent has once again reproduced contents of the PIO‟s reply dated 04.07.2018 while laying emphasis on Section 8(1)(g), Section 8(1)(j) and Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 to deny the remaining details sought by the appellant.Page 4 of 14
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephones.
Decision:
While examining the facts of the case at hand, the Commission notes that the respondent has wrongly cited the Section 24 of the RTI Act to deny access to the information, because the MHA, is not classified as an organisation which is exempt from the purview of the RTI Act, under Section 24 of the Act. Respondent has also placed reliance on Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005, which exempts disclosure of information on the following ground:
"...g) Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;"
It is apparent that such security cover has been given to persons facing some level of threat and accordingly security has been provided depending on the varying levels of threat perception. In such a scenario, revelation of names of the protectees or other details about the security cover, number of security persons deployed etc. will militate against the very objective of providing security cover and in fact may constitute a threat to the safety and security of the protectee. Thus, such queries do attract exemption under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005, as has been rightly cited by the respondent. The right to information, in such cases must make way for the right to privacy and security of the individual and is in consonance with the concept of „practical regime‟ of RTI as laid down in thepreamble of the RTI Act. In fact, it is noted that the FAA had already provided the number of protectees who have been given the various levels of security cover.
Therefore, on careful examination of the various aspects of the case, the Commission is convinced that information which could be disclosed, has already been supplied to the appellant. No further disclosure is warranted in this case. Appeal is disposed off as such.
(3) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/157110 Information seeking and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 23.06.2018 seeking the following information on 2 points:
1. Kindly provide the Note-sheet of one or more files of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) related with cases in which President's Police Medal for Gallantry (PPMG) and Police Medal for Gallantry (PMG) were actually granted by MHA, for the period since 01/01/2000 till date.Page 5 of 14
2. Kindly provide the Note-sheet of one or more files of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) related with cases in which President's Police Medal for Gallantry (PPMG) and Police Medal for Gallantry (PMG) were not finally granted by MHA but recommendations had come from various State governments and Police units, for the period since 01/01/2000 till date.
[Queries reproduced verbatim] PIO/MHA, PMA (Cell) vide letter dated 26.06.2018 informed the Appellant that the information sought is voluminous in nature and it disproportionally diverts the resources of the Public Authority. Hence the information sought was denied under Section 7(9) of RTI Act, 2005. Copy of the PIO‟s reply has not been annexed with the Second Appeal.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.06.2018. Sh. P K Srivastava/FAA-Addl. Secy. vide order dated 16.07.2018 observed that CPIO had rightly informed the appellant vide reply dated 26.06.2018 that information sought was voluminous in nature and could not be provided as such. It was further held that"...However, the Appellant is at liberty to inspect the records on any working day to define the information within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act after fixing an appointment with US (PMA) over telephone No. 23094009. Available and permissible information will be made available on the same day."
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Examining the facts of this case reveal that by an earlier case no. CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/120716/MHOME, queries about President‟s Police Medal for Distinguished Service (PPMDS)granted by MHA was adjudicated. However, the reply of the PIO in this case is different from the earlier case which has already been decided by the Commission, which is surprising considering the similarities of the facts of the cases. The PIO, in this case has denied disclosure of information vide letter dated 26.06.2018, citing Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, copy whereof has not been placed on record by the appellant.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephones.
Decision:Page 6 of 14
Perusal of the facts of the case reveal that the PIO has denied information by citing provisions of the Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act reads as:
"7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.
As is evident from a reading of the above section, this provision is not a ground for denial of information. Hence, denial of information was incorrect and PIO‟s reply is thus set aside as untenable in law. Be that as it may, the FAA‟s order has remedied the error committed by the PIO, by allowing inspection of the records to the appellant. Respondent present for the hearing- Sh. Anant Kishor Sharan- Dir. has in fact assured the Commission that documents identified by the appellant during the course of inspection, shall be provided to her on the same day. The appellant is at liberty to avail inspection of the records on any mutually convenient date and time, upon giving prior intimation to the respondent. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
(4) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/157875 Information seeking and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 23.06.2018 seeking the following information on 4 points about the Code of Conduct for Ministers presented on the website of the Ministry of Home Affairs:
1. Kindly provide the provisions of law(s) under which this Code has been promulgated.
2. Kindly provide an office copy of this Code.
3. Kindly provide a copy of the Gazette notification of this Code.
4. Kindly provide documents in one or more files (including the Note-sheet and the communications with various offices) of MHA related with formulation and promulgation of this Code.
[Queries reproduced verbatim] In her RTI application, the Appellant has mentioned that the instant RTI application is in response to the PIO‟s reply dated 07.02.2018, to her earlier RTI application dated 24.12.2017. Copies of the earlier RTI application dated 24.12.2017 and copy of PIO‟s reply dated 07.02.2018 have not been placed on record by the appellant.
PIO/Dy. Secy. (CS), vide letter dated 06.07.2018 informed the Appellant that available information has already been sent and the CPIO has no more information to provide in this regard. It was also stated that u/s 8(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, information more than 20 years may not be provided.
Page 7 of 14Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.07.2018 which was not adjudicated. Hence, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephones.
Ms. Renu Sarin - Director present for the hearing submitted that the Code of Conduct was promulgated on the basis of recommendation of the Santhanam Committee. But no gazette notification to this effect is available since it was not a statutory enactment.The Code as such is available in public domain, on the website of the MHA, however, the respondent was not sure of the availability of the supporting documents related to formulation of the Code. On being asked by the Commission, the respondent replied that it is likely that some documents, in this regard may be available in the archives, if at all.
Decision:
Upon examination of the facts of the case, it is noted that admittedly information as available has already been provided by the respondent in response to an earlier RTI Application. The Code about which information has been sought, was promulgated way back in 1964 and the Code is available on the website of the MHA. Since no gazette notification is available, as explained by the respondent during the course of hearing, hence no further information in this regard can be supplied.
Under the circumstances, the Commission finds no infirmity with the responses of the respondent and upholds the same. No further action is deemed necessary in this case.
(5) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/163426 Information seeking and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 03.08.2018 seeking information on the following point:
Kindly provide copy of the documents of the Ministry of Home Affairs associated with the files related with the appointment of various Governors of different States since 01/01/2014.
[Queries reproduced verbatim] PIO/Dy. Secy. (CS-I), vide letter dated 20.08.2018 denied the information u/s 8(1)(e) and 8(2) of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 8 of 14
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 26.08.2018 which was not adjudicated. Therefore, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal. Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephones.
The respondent, Ms. Renu Sarin, submits that no applications are called for the appointment of Governors, but persons of eminence are invited on the basis of their competence and nominated for appointment as Governor. The terms of appointment, terms and conditions of office, qualifications of the Governor have been clearly laid out in Chapter II of the Constitution under Article 153 to Article 158, while the various emoluments, allowances and privileges available to a Governor are determined by the Governors (Emoluments, Allowances and Privileges) Act, 1982. The respondent has stated that information sought by the appellant has been denied invoking provisions of the Section 8(1)(e) and 8(2) of the RTI Act and she went on to add that provisions of Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act also debar disclosure of such information as has been sought by the appellant.
Decision:
Deliberations in this case have necessitated revisiting the provisions cited by the respondent to deny disclosure of information. The provisions of Section 8(1)(e) and 8 (2) as cited by the PIO are as follows:
Section 8 (1)(e): information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
Section 8 (2): Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
Perusal of the above provisions indicate that neither support the denial of the information, as done by the PIO. Information sought by the appellant is not held by the Government in fiduciary capacity because no confidential information about the Governors had been sought by the appellant. In so far as the Section 8(2) of the RTI Act is concerned, it acts quite contrary to the purport of the respondent wherein it has been envisaged that the public authority may allow access to information, notwithstanding provisions of the Official Secrets Act, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to protected interests. Therefore, reliance placed by the respondent on the above provisions of the RTI Act is untenable in this case.
Page 9 of 14Now, dealing with the respondent‟s plea on Section 8(1)(a), it is noted that provisions of the said Section read thus: (a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;
Considering that the applicability of the above provision of law has not been substantiated, the Commission does not wish to dwell on the relevance thereof in this case.
In the light of the above discussion, the Commission notes that the query raised by the appellant is untenable per se because it suffers from ambiguity and refers to a huge amount of generic data, spanning over six years for 29 States of the country. Most of the relevant information about appointment of Governors is already available in the public domain for every citizen to access and the appellant has not specified which document has been sought by her. The appellant has also failed to establish how disclosure of this vague information will serve larger public interest. The Commission cannot support this roving and fishing query and in the considered opinion of the Commission, the instant appeal cannot be entertained as such. The appeal is disposed off with no further orders.
(6) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/163429 Information seeking and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 08.08.2018 seeking information on the following 2 points:
1. Kindly provide copies of the various Guidelines issued from time to time by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) as regards the policy and parameters for issuance of orders for National Investigation Agency (NIA) enquiry/investigation in matters initiated by the Central Government.
2. Kindly also provide copies of the various Guidelines issued from time to time by the MHA as regards the policy and parameters for acceptance and subsequent issuance of orders for National Investigation Agency (NIA) enquiry/investigation order in matters referred by the various State Governments.
[Queries reproduced verbatim] PIO/Dy. Secy. (CTCR)-Sh. S K Chhikara vide letter dated 28.08.2018 informed the Appellant that the cases are entrusted to the NIA for investigation of a case by the Central Government, as per provisions contained in Section 6 of the NIA Act, 2008.
Page 10 of 14Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.09.2018. FAA vide order dated 01.10.2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(7) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/163428 Information seeking and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 08.08.2018 seeking the following information:
Kindly provide copies of the various Guidelines issued from time to time by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) as regards the policy and parameters for acceptance/opposition to prayers of National Investigation Agency (NIA) enquiry/investigation in matters raised by individuals and groups in various High Courts and the Supreme Courts through PILs, Writ Petitions, other petitions etc. [Queries reproduced verbatim] PIO/Dy. Secy. (CTCR), vide letter dated 28.08.2018 informed the Appellant that the cases are entrusted to the NIA for investigation of a case by the Central Government, as per provisions contained in Section 6 of the NIA Act, 2008.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.09.2018. FAA vide order dated 01.10.2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephones and reiterate their respective contentions.
Decision:
Perusal of both the above mentioned appeals indicate that information as available with the respondent and permissible under the RTI Act, has been made available to the appellant. It is noted that even convoluted queries have been answered by the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that NIA features in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, and qualifies as an organisation which is exempt from the purview of the RTI Act, under Section 24 of the Act.Page 11 of 14
The aforesaid appeals are thus disposed off with no directions.
(8) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/163427 Information seeking and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 31.07.2018 seeking information on 7 points:
1. How many investigations have so far been handed through orders passed by the Central Government to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) during the last 10 years, i.e., from 01/01/2008.
2. Kindly provide its year-wise break up and brief reference/title of each of these cases.
3. How many of the above mentioned CBI investigations have got completed, as per MHA records.
4. Which of the above CBI investigations are still remaining pending, as per MHA records.
5. In how many of the above cases of CBI, as per MHA records, there has been conviction so far by the Courts.
6. What is the present total number of pending cases in CBI, as per MHA records?
7. What is the year wise break-up of these pending cases?
[Queries reproduced verbatim] PIO/Director (CIS-II) - Sh. S K Bhalla vide letter dated 14.08.2018 stated as follows:
"...Point No. 1 to 7: The undersigned CPIO has no information to furnish. CS Division, MHA and UT Division MHA may have some information and your application is being transferred to the concerned CPIO for providing the relevant information if any, under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005."
The RTI application was thus transferred to DS(CS-I) and Dir.(ANL & Delhi Police) for providing necessary information to the applicant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.08.2018. FAA/Joint Secy.-CIS Division-Sh. SCL Das vide order dated 19.09.2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Aggrieved by denial of information, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 28.08.2020 has been received from Sh. Shailendra Vikram Singh -CPIO & Dy. Secy., CIS Division reiterating the contentions of the PIO, from the reply dated 14.08.2018.Page 12 of 14
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephones.
Decision:
In the light of the averments put forth by the respondent, it is evident that the actual custodian of information is the PIO/DS(CS-I), CS Division, MHA and Director (ANL & Delhi Police), UT Division, MHA. Accordingly, the Registry of this Bench is directed to send a copy of this order with specific direction that i) PIO/DS(CS-I), CS Division, MHA and ii) Director (ANL & Delhi Police), UT Division, MHA shall furnish appropriate replies to the appellant, under intimation to the Commission within three weeks of receipt of this order. The PIO/Dy. Secy., CIS Division is directed to ensure that this order is duly communicated to the custodians of information for compliance thereof.
(9) CIC/MHOME/A/2018/163421 Information seeking and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 09.07.2018 seeking the following information with respect to a specific news article dated 08.07.2018 about "Centre plans stronger defence for key data":
Kindly provide the copy of one or more files in the Ministry of External Affairs (MHA) (including Note-sheet and correspondence of the MHA with various other offices) as regards the above news article, particularly in view of the statements made by MHA officials, as stated in above article.
[Queries reproduced verbatim] PIO/Director (CS-I)- Sh. Mukesh Mangal, vide letter dated 01.08.2018 informed the Appellant that no information is available in the matter cited in the RTI application i.e. purported statement of the spokesperson of MHA.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 12.08.2018. FAA vide letter dated September 2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 28.08.2020 has been received from Sh. Shailendra Vikram Singh -CPIO & Dy. Secy., CIS Division. The respondent submitted a copy of the OM dated 24.07.2018 claiming that the same was sent to the Page 13 of 14 appellant in response to her RTI application informing her that no information is available in the matter cited in the RTI application i.e. purported statement of the spokesperson of MHA.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephones. The respondent explained that information with respect to the appellant‟s query is not available on record and hence the appellant was informed accordingly. Appellant pointed out that she had not received the copy of submission dated 28.08.2020.
Decision:
In the light of the foregoing facts, discussed during hearing, the Commission directs the CPIO & Dy. Secy., CIS Division to supply a copy of the submission dated 28.08.2020 to the appellant, within a week of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
The appeals stand disposed off with the above observations.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. ससन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यावपतप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोिर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514 Page 14 of 14