Central Information Commission
Mr.Vvnv Prasad vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 16 September, 2010
Central Information Commission
Room No. 5, Club Building, Near Post Office
Old J.N.U. Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel No: 26161997
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2010/000318
Name of the Appellant : Shri VVNV Prasad
(The Appellant was not present)
Name of the Public Authority :
National Diary Development Board,
Anand.
Represented by Shri M.N. Buch and
Shri N.K. Ramachandran, A.A.
The matter was heard on : 16.9.2010.
ORDER
Shri VVNV Prasad, the Appellant, vide an application dated 15.9.2009 sought following information under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. How did and why did the CPIO of NDDB transferred my application dated 23.10.2008 ( under sec. 6(3) to a person who is not a CPIO and do not belong to a public authority ? (as under
sec. 6(3) an application can be transferred only to another CPIO belonging to public authority).
2. How did and why did the first Appellate Authority of NDDB upheld the decision of CPIO - transferring RTI application to a person who does not belong to a public authority ?
3. As my request for information dated 23.10.2008 was not processed, this is to request your goodselves to please provide me a copy of my complete service register - Regarding my service with Indian Immunological Limited (Employee Code:
001264). Though IIL is a separate legal entity, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of National Dairy Development Board. So this is to pary y0u to also consider this point with reference to section 11 of the Right to Information Act - 2005.
The PIO vide letter dated 22.10.2009 informed the Appellant that though the Indian Immunologicals Limited (IIL), Hyderabad is not a Public Authority, they have provided a copy of the Appellant's Service Register containing 85 pages, free of cost without prejudice to their contention that they are not covered under the RTI Act. A copy of the service register containing 85 paves was enclosed by the PIO in his reply to the Appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), before whom the Appellant filed an appeal has also upheld the reply of the PIO. Hence the present appeal.
During the hearing, the Respondent submits that even though, according to them, IIL is not Public authority, the Respondent have obtained the requisite information from them and provided to the Appellant. They submit that the Appellant, in his appeal filed before the Commission has stated that he is fully satisfied regarding query No.3 of the RTI application, he only persists for information on point No. 1 & 2 of RTI application. The Respondent submits that point No.1 & 2 is not information as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
It deserves mentioning here that the information seeker can seek only such information which is held or under the control of Public Authority and sought for information should exist in the form of records, documents, memos, e-mails etc. The information sought by the Appellant in point No.1 & 2 of the RTI Act, does not fall under the category of information.
In view of the above, the Commission finds no infirmity in the replies of the Respondent.
The matter is disposed off accordingly on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 16.09.2010