Central Information Commission
Y S V Prasada Rao vs National Human Rights Commission on 20 June, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NHRCM/A/2023/613915
Shri Y S V Prasada Rao ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
CPIO, National Human Rights Commission, New ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Delhi
Date of Hearing : 18.06.2024
Date of Decision : 18.06.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.10.2022
PIO replied on : 21.11.2022
First Appeal filed on : 21.11.2022
First Appellate Order on : 16.12.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint admitted on : 20.03.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.10.2022 seeking information on following points:-
(1) Why did the commission wait till 21.10.2022 to pass the order, when I sent my email on Sep 1, 2022, 12:21 AM. It appears only after my filing RTI to know its status my petition came into light.
(2) The amendment says: Complaints not ordinarily entertainable, but it did not say never or must not be entertainable.
(3) The rule says: Commission MAY dismiss in limini complaints of the following nature: but it did not say MUST dismiss in limini complaints.
(4) The very purpose of my complaint to the NHRC is necessitated due to insensitive public servants. Had they taken corrective measures the need of approaching the NHRC did not arise. All my complaints are addressed to the public servants/constitutional authorities only.
(5) We must imbibe the noble words of our Honble Vice President: Must take sides when it comes to decimation of human rights. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. it is a direct attack on the officialdom. Regarding whose Neutrality and whose Silence the Honble Vice President is Page 1 of 4 talking about. He further said that Human rights are quintessential for flourishing democracy. Serious challenges to human rights arise primarily on account of the silent and voiceless existence of the majority of our citizens. Human rights nurture and blossom in a regime where there is a rule of law and not law of ruler.
(6) NHRC dismissed my petitions saying (1) allegation is not against any public servant (2) where it is only a copy of the complaint addressed to some other authority. Whether it is addressed to X or Y, crime is crime only. What is the purpose and use of marking a copy to the superiors when it has no value. In emails there are Ce and Bee and if they do not have any value why they are kept in the email format (7) Justice Mishra, Honble Chairperson, NHRC said people not getting clean air in many cities in the country (8) what efforts are made to fulfil the functions of NHRC: Section 2(1)(d) of the PHRA defines Human Rights as the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India. Proactively or reactively inquire into violations of human rights by government of India or negligence of such violation by a public servant.
The protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation. Review the factors, including acts of terrorism that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights and recommend appropriate remedial measures."
The CPIO & Consultant (Section Officer), National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi vide letter dated 21.11.2022 replied as under:-
Point No. 1,2,3 & 6:-It is to inform that the Public Information officer is not under any obligation to furnish reasons, or to explain, or to justify as to why the Commission has taken or has not taken a particular action, as it is a matter within the domain of the Commission. It is clarified that proceedings of the Commission are deemed to be judicial proceedings as per Section 13(5) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and drawn in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as per wisdom of the Commission and it does not cast an obligation upon the PIO to interpret the law for the applicant under the RTI Act.
Point No. 4, 5 & 7:-No information sought, but only statements by the applicant. Hence, not under the purview of RTI/PIO. It is also clarified that RTI Act provides access to any information held by a public authority but cast no obligation upon the PIO to provide the information or to respond to queries regarding which no information is available on record.
Point No. 8:-As regards functions of NHRC, the applicant can see the website of the Commission i.e. www.nhrc.nic.in (publication/annual reports) Page 2 of 4 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 16.12.2022 stated as under:-
"Perusal of the online RTI application No. 00812 dated 27.10.2022 it reveals that the applicant while referring his another RTI application No. NHRCM/R/E/22/00748 has mentioned his comments regarding his email complaint dated 01.09.2022. According to the applicant, the Commission has dismissed his complaint stating the reason that the complaint did not involve any public servant. No specific information was called for by the applicant in his RTI application.
In response, Ld. PIO vide letter dated 21.11.2022 has provided the appropriate response.
Now the RTI appellant, vide his RTI appeal dated 21.11.2022 has submitted his grievances related to his flat built up by Rustomjee Evershine Global City builders at Thane. The appellant has prayed the FFA to review his appeal from the victim's point of view.
As such, from the RTI appeal it is apparent that the appellant has not sought any information rather he has requested to resolve his grievances related to his flat constructed by Rustomjee Evershine Global City builders. Neither the PIO nor the undersigned First Appellate Authority have jurisdiction to resolve the grievances of the appellant mentioned in the RTI application/RTI appeal under the provision of the RTI Act 2005."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: 1. Shri Gautam Kumar, Asst Registrar
2. Shri Bikram Singh, Assistant The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation. Shri Gautam Kumar reiterated his written submission dated 05.06.2024, a copy of which was served to the Appellant and stated that information as per available record was provided by them.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.Page 3 of 4
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)