Central Information Commission
Rahul Kumar Singh vs Indira Gandhi National Centre For The ... on 16 September, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/IGNCA/A/2020/663491 -UM
Mr.RAHUL KUMAR SINGH
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indira Gandhi Nation Centre for the Arts Sutradhara
Janpath, New Delhi - 110001
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.09.2021
Date of Decision : 16.09.2021
Date of RTI application 01.11.2019
CPIO's response 05.12.2019
Date of the First Appeal 04.12.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 21.01.2020
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points, as under:-
1. What is the official email ID of Director, IGNCA.
2. What is the time required to reply the email received on [email protected].Page 1 of 3
3. Kindly provide me a copy of the contact, copyright, etc under which the IGNCA refused to provide me a copy of the above mentioned documentary.
4. Kindly provide me the details of the procedure that has been adopted to rule out my request received via email, to provide me a copy of the above mentioned documentary.
The CPIO vide letter dated 05.12.2019, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated21.01.2020,upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to providethe information.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Rahul Kumar Singh present through AC, Respondent: Sunil Goyal, Under Secretary, present through AC.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Applications stated that he had sought information regarding copy in disc format of the IGNCAs documentation of RAMLEELA of RAMNAGAR in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, which was telecast on the Doordarshan National Channel from 27th September to 27th October 2015 in 31 episodes. The Appellant stated that no correct reply has been furnished by the Respondent. Moreover the documentation of RAMLEELA had already been telecast on television and so it is not a private document. The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 05.12.2019 they had furnished a reply to the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act. The Respondent further submitted that they have a memorandum of understanding with Kashi Naresh who holds the copyright of the information sought and therefore they are barred from disclosing the information under section 9 of the RTI Act 2005. The Appellant countered the claim of the Respondent and stated that the said memorandum does not exist in physical form but the Respondent public authority was using it as a verbal tool for denying legitimate information. The Appellant requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.Page 2 of 3
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that as per the said memorandum of understanding, the copyright of the information sought is vested with Kashi Naresh. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to apply section 11 of the RTI Act 2005 and seek permission of Kashi Naresh in order to supply the information. The Commission directs the Respondent furnish a precise and an updated revised reply to the Appellant as per the communication received from Kashi Naresh, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Commission further directs the Respondent to file a copy of above said memorandum of understanding with Kashi Naresh to the Commission within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(UdayMahurkar) (उदयमाहूरकर)
(Information Commissioner) (सच ु )
ू नाआयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवसं त्याद्वपतप्रद्वत)
(R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पजं ीयक)
011-26182598
द्वदनांक / Date: 16.09.2021
Page 3 of 3