Central Information Commission
Mr.V K Mittal vs Prime Minister Office on 23 July, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/002146
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 23 July 2012
Date of decision : 23 July 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri V K Mittal,
605, Satpura Apartment,
Kaushambi, Ghaziabad - 201 010.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Prime Minister's Office,
South Block,
New Delhi - 110 101.
CPIO, National Technical Research
Organization, Block III, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110 067.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Smt. Sanjukta Ray, Director, PMO,
(ii) Shri Sanjeev Gupta, CAPIO, PMO,
(iii) Shri Subhendu Hota, CAPIO, PMO,
(iv) Shri C. Puri, Ex. CPIO, NTRO,
(v) Shri Sudhir, CPIO, NTRO
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
All the parties were present during the hearing and made their submissions.
2. The Appellant had sought four sets of information relating to the NTRO. The first query was about whether the PMO had ordered an enquiry into a particular incident described by the Appellant to have taken place earlier. The second query was about whether the PMO had given any sanction to a particular project undertaken by the NTRO. The third query was about the CIC/SM/A/2011/002146 reasons for the NSA or the PMO not placing the CAG report on NTRO in Parliament. And the fourth query was about any communication which the PMO might have sent to the NTRO divesting it of its capability for electronic interception. The CPIO had transferred his RTI application to the NTRO which, it appears, informed him that it was not obliged to disclose any information having been included in the second schedule of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Appellate Authority had endorsed the decision of the CPIO.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant argued that he had sought information from the PMO and not from the NTRO. He submitted that it was not right on the part of the CPIO of the PMO to transfer his RTI application. He further submitted that the information sought by him was not classified in nature and should have been furnished. On the other hand, the Respondents submitted that the entire information sought was directly held by the NTRO and, therefore, the RTI application was rightly transferred there.
4. We have carefully considered the RTI queries. Before seeking any information as above, the Appellant has given a descriptive account of the background against which he has raised his queries. The context of the RTI queries warrants a reference to the NTRO. The nature of the information sought is such that it cannot be independently dealt with in the PMO as the desired information, namely, the records and documents are held in the NTRO. Therefore, we cannot find any fault in the decision of the CPIO for transferring the RTI application to the NTRO. Since the NTRO is an organisation placed in the second schedule to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, ordinarily, it is not obliged to disclose information unless it relates to either any act of corruption or human rights violation. In the present case, none of the queries relates to either corruption or human rights violation. Therefore, the decision of the CPIO of the NTRO not to disclose any information can be easily understood. CIC/SM/A/2011/002146
5. In the light of the above, we cannot blame the CPIO of either the PMO or the NTRO for their respective decision.
6. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2011/002146