Central Information Commission
Chitresh Kumar vs Prime Minister'S Office on 24 May, 2021
Central Information Commission
,
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
, New Delhi - 110067
/ Second Appeal Nos. CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/114554
CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/118164
CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/122959
CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/122961
CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/127801
CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/134225
CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/135171
CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/135172
CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/135179
CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/135610
CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/135609
CIC/PM OIN/A/2021/110353
Shri Chitresh Kumar ... /Appellant
VERSUS/
PIO, PMO ... /Respondent
Through: Sh. Praveen Kumar
Date of Hearing : 24.05.2021
Date of Decision : 24.05.2021
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
114554 03.02.2020 24.02.2020 13.03.2020 - 21.05.2020
118164 11.02.2020 24.02.2020 13.03.2020 - 06.07.2020
122959 13.03.2020 - 20.06.2020 - 17.08.2020
122961 13.03.2020 - 20.06.2020 - 17.08.2020
127801 18.06.2020 - 17.07.2020 - 21.09.2020
134225 19.08.2020 - 02.09.2020 - 05.11.2020
135171 24.07.2020 - 08.09.2020 26.10.2020 11.11.2020
135172 19.08.2020 - 19.09.2020 26.10.2020 11.11.2020
135179 19.08.2020 - 19.09.2020 26.10.2020 11.11.2020
Page 1 of 11
135610 19.08.2020 - 19.09.2020 26.10.2020 16.11.2020
135609 19.08.2020 - 19.09.2020 26.10.2020 16.11.2020
110353 23.11.2020 17.02.2021 16.01.2021 25.02.2021 08.03.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/114554 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.02.2020 seeking copy of action taken and name of the inquiry officer in respect of complaint filed by him against the Dr. Manoj Kumar Pandey (JNU).
The CPIO/Dy. Secretary vide letter dated 24.02.2020 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.03.2020 which had not been adjudicated.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions from the PIO, PMO vide letter dated 21.05.2020 is found annexed with the Second Appeal, whereby the PIO's reply has been reiterated and the Appellant was advised to consult the concerned public authority Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Govt. of India for further information/grievance redressal. The Appellant was further informed that information about the proceedings with respect to his representation dated 18.10.2019 is available on the website www.pgportal.gov.in.Page 2 of 11
(2) CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/118164 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.02.2020 seeking copy of action taken on his complaint dated 03.12.2019 filed against the Prof. Santosh Shukla, JNU, New Delhi.
The CPIO/Dy. Secretary vide letter dated 24.02.2020 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.03.2020 which had not been adjudicated.
Not satisfied with the reply, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(3) CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/122959 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.03.2020 seeking action taken on his letter dated 03.12.2019 against Delhi Police.
He filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2020, stating that he had not received any from the CPIO.
The instant Second Appeal was filed on the ground that he received no response from the FAA.
Written submission dated 17.09.2020 from the Respondent-FAA/PMO is found on record, whereby the FAA disposed off the First Appeal directing the PIO to provide a final response within 25 days. The FAA has regretted the delay in Page 3 of 11 furnishing of response, and attributed it to the lockdown situation in the country due to the spread of pandemic.
In compliance with the FAA's order, PIO responded vide letter dated 09.10.2020 stating that the complaint dated 03.12.2019 filed by the Appellant had been forwarded to the Police Commissioner, Delhi Police vide letter dated 06.12.2019, for necessary action. Copy of the letter dated 06.12.2019 has also been placed on record by the Respondent.
(4) CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/122961 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.03.2020 seeking action taken on his letter dated 03.12.2019 against the Security division of JNU.
He filed a First Appeal dated 30.06.2020, stating that he had not received any from the CPIO.
The instant Second Appeal was filed on the ground that he received no response from the FAA.
Written submission dated 05.10.2020 from the PIO/PMO reveals that FAA had passed an order dated 14.08.2020 and in compliance of the said order of the FAA, PIO had informed the Appellant that the complaint dated 03.12.2019 filed by the Appellant had been forwarded to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education vide letter dated 06.12.2019, for necessary action, annexing a copy of the letter dated 06.12.2019 with the letter dated 05.10.2020. A copy of the FAA's order is also found on record.
(5) CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/127801 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.06.2020 seeking name & designation of the members and attendance sheet of the meetings held by Enquiry Committee constituted in respect of grievance no. PMOPG/D/2019/0433658 and based on the report of Dr. Pramod Kumar(JNU).
He filed a First Appeal dated 17.07.2020, stating that he had not received any reply from the CPIO and filed the instant Second Appeal on the ground that he received no response from the FAA.
Records of the case reveal that the FAA had disposed off the First Appeal vide order dated 17.09.2020 directing the PIO to provide final response within 25 days.
In compliance with the FAA's order, PIO/PMO responded vide letter dated 11.12.2020 stating that the Appellant's representation dated 18.11.2019 had been sent to the Police Commissioner, Delhi Police on 20.11.2019, for necessary Page 4 of 11 action. Upon further consideration, the matter was forwarded to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education vide letter dated 06.12.2019, for appropriate action. Since the matter related to the concerned public authority, information could be availed therefrom and proceedings in this regard available on the website www.pgportal.gov.in.
(6) CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/134225 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.08.2020 seeking following information:
1. From where did by Shri K.P.Kukreti, ACP, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi receive information that the Appellant visited JNU only in the case of work related to office.
Claiming that no reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.09.2020 and approached this Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating that the First Appeal had not been adjudicated.
Records annexed with the Second Appeal reveal that the FAA had disposed off the First Appeal vide order dated 26.10.2020 directing the PIO to provide final response within 25 days.
In compliance with the FAA's order, PIO responded vide letter dated 17.11.2020 stating that the Appellant's representation had been forwarded to the Police Commissioner, Delhi Police vide letter dated 09.07.2020, for necessary action. A copy of the letter dated 09.07.2020 is found on record. The Appellant was further apprised that since the matter related to the concerned public authority, viz. Delhi Police, information could be availed from them and proceedings in this regard available on the website www.pgportal.gov.in.
(7) CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/135171 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.08.2020 seeking action taken in respect of his complaint bearing registration number PMOPG/D/2020/0104484.
The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.09.2020 on the ground that no reply had been sent by the PIO. The FAA/Dy. Secretary vide order dated 26.10.2020 directed as under:-
Page 5 of 11Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Records annexed with the Second Appeal reveal that in compliance with the FAA's order, PIO furnished reply dated 17.11.2020 stating that his grievance had been duly forwarded to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education vide letter dated 28.05.2020 for necessary action, copy whereof is found enclosed.
(8) CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/135172 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.08.2020 seeking information about the grievance registered as no. PMOPG/D/2019/0402138 including the basis of inquiry, conclusion of the inquiry along with all evidence presented in inquiry and name & designation of the members of the Enquiry Committee which was constituted based on the report of Dr. Pramod Kumar (JNU).
Having not received any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.09.2020. The FAA/Dy. Secretary vide order dated 26.10.2020 directed as under:-
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Records annexed with the Second Appeal reveal that in compliance with the FAA's order, PIO furnished a reply dated 18.12.2020 stating that the grievance had been duly forwarded to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education vide letter dated 24.10.2019 for necessary action, copy whereof is found enclosed. The Appellant was further apprised that since the matter related to the concerned public authority, viz. Secretary, Department of Higher Education, information could be availed from them and proceedings in this regard available on the website www.pgportal.gov.in.
(9) CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/135179 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.08.2020 seeking information about his representation/grievance no. PMOPG/D/2019/0420749 dated 22.06.2020, including the basis of inquiry, outcome of the inquiry along with all Page 6 of 11 evidence presented in inquiry and name & designation of the members of the Enquiry Committee which was constituted based on the report of Dr. Pramod Kumar(JNU).
On not receiving any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.09.2020.The FAA/Dy. Secretary vide order dated 26.10.2020 directed as under:-
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Records annexed with the Second Appeal reveal that in compliance with the FAA's order, PIO furnished a reply dated 17.11.2020 stating that his grievance had been duly forwarded to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education vide letter dated 07.11.2019 for necessary action, copy whereof is found enclosed. The Appellant was further apprised that since the matter related to the concerned public authority, viz. Secretary, Department of Higher Education, information could be availed from them and proceedings in this regard available on the website www.pgportal.gov.in.
(10) CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/135610
(11) CIC/PM OIN/A/2020/135609
The Appellant filed two RTI applications dated 19.08.2020 seeking information about the status of the grievance registered as PMOPG/D/2019/0449691 dated 17.06.2020 including i) enquiry report of the Enquiry Committee ii) all evidence evaluated during the process of inquiry iii) name & designation of the members of Enquiry Committee which was constituted based on the report of Dr. Pramod Kumar(JNU).
Having not received any from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.09.2020.The FAA/Dy. Secretary vide order dated 26.10.2020 directed as under:-Page 7 of 11
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
In compliance with the FAA's order, PIO furnished replies dated 17.11.2020 and 11.12.2020 stating that the grievance had been duly forwarded to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education vide letter dated 04.12.2019 for necessary action, copy whereof has been enclosed. The Appellant was further apprised that since the matter related to the concerned public authority, viz. Secretary, Department of Higher Education, information could be availed therefrom and proceedings in this regard available on the website www.pgportal.gov.in.
(12) CIC/PM OIN/A/2021/110353 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.11.2020 seeking action taken on his complaint dated 16.07.2020.
The CPIO/Under Secretary vide letter 17.02.2021 as under:-
Page 8 of 11Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.01.2021.The FAA/Dy. Secretary vide order dated 25.02.2021informed the Appellant that the reply has already been provided by PIO's letter dated 17.02.2021 and a copy of the reply has been again furnished to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, 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, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. The Appellant's contact numbers provided by him were tried repeatedly, but were found unreachable. Respondent was present for the audio conference and stated that all the information which existed on record in response to the Appellant's queries, had been duly provided to him, in each of the above cases.
Decision:
In the absence of the Appellant, the above appeals are decided on the basis of records available. It is noted that the above appeals arise out of his grievances and complaints against JNU staff/officials, Security division of JNU and Delhi Police. Clearly, the subject matter of his complaints do not relate to the Respondent public authority, viz. the PMO. Hence, the respective complaints/grievances have been duly forwarded by the Respondent PIO to the concerned public authority which is the actual custodian of information.
The Appellant has approached this Commission with 12 Second Appeals stating that he is not satisfied with the response furnished by the Respondent, without explaining the cause thereof. On the other hand, in each case, the Respondent has categorically informed the Appellant about the transfer of his complaint/grievance to the actual custodian of information. Thus, information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, based on available and existing records have been made available to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to clarify the entire scope of Section 6 of the Act, referring to a Full Bench decision of this Commission, dated 22.09.2009, in case no. CIC/AT/A/2008/01280 titled Ketan Ka ntilal Modi vs Central Board of Excise and Customs, whereby it was held:
"48. ....reasoning that an application for information will have to first stand the test of Section6(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.Page 9 of 11
49. The expression "concerned public authority" implies that that public authority should beholding 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) ofthe Act.
.............................................................................................
53. It follows from it that when a petitioner is aware of the location of a given information vis-à-visa public authority, it is not open to him to file his RTI application before any other public authority in the expectation that this latter public authority would act under Section 6(3) to transfer his application to where the information was known to be held. As in this particular case, it is quite obvious that the appellant was fully cognizant of the fact about the information requested by him being held by Chief Commissionerates and Commissionerates of Central Excise. Yet, rather than approach those public authorities and all these where public authorities in their own rights for the information under Section 6(1), he chose the easy way out of filing his application under Section 6(1) read with Section 6(3) before the CPIO, CBEC, demanding simultaneously that the application be transferred to the Commissioners. Appellant's argument that CBEC was the Apex body or the nodal office, does not help him much because even if CBEC were to be all that appellant says it is nodal office or Apex body, etc. under the RTI Act it is a public authority and its rights and obligations flow from its status as that public authority under Section 2(h) of the Act. A public authority cannot be forced to accept obligations beyond the statutory limit in order to suit a petitioner's convenience. .............................................................................................
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 Based on the above decision, it was held in a subsequent decision of this Commission, dated 29.07.2016 in a case titled R S Gupta vs. L G office that:
".....The offices of President, Vice President, Prime Minister, Governors, Lt. Governors and Chief Ministers are not legally obliged Page 10 of 11 under RTI Act to entertain RTI applications seeking information unrelated to it, or not held or controlled by these high offices...."
Emphasis supplied The perusal of records of the cases clearly indicate that information as held by the Respondent, has been duly provided to the Appellant. Appellant has not been able to substantiate the cause of his dissatisfaction.
In the light of the aforementioned discussion, the Commission is convinced that there is no infirmity in the responses furnished by the Respondent to the Appellant, in the above cases, and does not require any intervention.
The above appeals are thus dismissed on merits.
Y. K. Sinha ( )
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
S. K. Chitkara ( )
Dy. Registrar ( - )
011-26186535
Page 11 of 11