Central Information Commission
Mr.Paras Nath Singh vs Lok Sabha Secretariat on 17 July, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/002598
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 17 July 2012
Date of decision : 17 July 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Paras Nath Singh,
H.No. S/13, Banna Devi G T Road,
Aligarh - 202 001.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Lok Sabha Secretariat,
Parliament House,
New Delhi - 110 001.
The Appellant was present along with Shri Jatin Anand Dwivedi.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Kushal Sarkar, DS & CAPIO,
(ii) Shri Lakshmikant Singh, US,
(iii) Shri K. Sona, US
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
The Appellant, in his application dated 16.07.2011, had wanted to get the action taken report on his letter dated 27.06.2011 addressed to the Chairman, Public Accounts Committee. The CPIO, in his letter dated 27.06.2011, informed the Appellant that the concerned Division of the Lok Sabha Secretariat had not received his letter.
2. Not satisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 28.08.2011. The first Appellate CIC/SM/A/2011/002598 Authority, in his order dated 26.09.2011, stated that since the Appellant had sought disclosure of the Draft Report of the PAC on 2G Spectrum Scam, it would not be possible to disclose it as the Report had not yet been tabled in the Parliament and that its disclosure was exempted under section 8(1)(c) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Aggrieved with the order of the first Appellate Authority, the Appellant has filed a Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission.
3. Both the parties were present during the hearing and made their submissions.
4. After carefully considering the submissions made before us and the facts of the case, we are in agreement with the contention of the CPIO that his letter addressed to the Chairman, PAC was not available with the public authority and, therefore, there is no question of any action taken on that letter. In fact, the Respondents produced before us a file noting from the office of the Private Secretary to the Chairman PAC in which it was clearly stated that the Appellant's letter had never been received in that office. This is of course surprising since the Appellant had sent this letter by speed post.
5. The Appellant expressed his desire to have a copy of the file noting relating to how his RTI application including the first appeal had been dealt with. For this, he has to make a fresh RTI application since he had not asked for this information originally.
6. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) CIC/SM/A/2011/002598 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/2011/002598