Central Information Commission
Mrashok Pradhan vs Ministry Of Law & Justice on 26 March, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2014/001311
Video Conference
Sh Ashok Pradhan v. Legislative Department, M/o Law & Justice
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 27.1.2014 Reply: 26.2.2014 Time: 30 days
FAA: nil FAO: 12.5.2014 Time:
SA: 29.8.2014 Hearing:23.3.2015 Decision: 26032015
Result: Disposed of
Observation:
Parties Present:
The appellant is present for video conference at NIC centre, Puri. The Public Authority
is represented by Mr. SK Chitkara and two others.
Facts:
1. Appellant through his RTI application had sought for information in relation to Constitution of India and its relevant articles. PIO Vide his letter dated 26.02.2014 replied that the information sought by the appellant was not covered U/S 2 (f) of RTI Act.
CIC/SA/A/2014/001311 Page 1
2. Being unsatisfied with the information furnished, the appellant had preferred First Appeal. FAA Vide his Order dated 12.05.2014 again stated that as the information sought by the appellant did not fall under the definition of Sec 2 (f), information could not be furnished. Claiming non furnishing of information, appellant has approached the Commission in Second Appeal. Decision:
3. Both the parties made their submissions. The respondent officers submitted that the RTI application of the appellant is very lengthy and contains so many interrogatory questions, which do not fall under the definition of 'Information' as per the RTI Act. He is asking about the Constitution, enquiring which part of it, is Constitution and which part is law; under what provisions people can issue directions to the Government, etc. The Commission perused the RTI application of the appellant and queried the appellant, who is a senior citizen, as to what precise information he wanted. But in spite of repeated enquiries by the Commission, the appellant could not give any precise answer for any information/any document that is required from the respondent authority. In view of this, the Commission holds that there is no requirement of any information for the appellant and hence the Commission closes the appeal.
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under the RTI Act, Govt. of India Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legislation CIC/SA/A/2014/001311 Page 2 RTI Cell, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
2. Shri Ashok Pradhan Basukera, PO, Sakhi Gopal, District: Puri Odisha State CIC/SA/A/2014/001311 Page 3