Central Information Commission
Mrgopi Chandedara vs Central Board Of Film ... on 25 March, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
No.CIC/SM/C/2013/900558-YA
Date of Hearing : 25.03.2015
Date of Decision : 25.03.2015
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Edara Gopi Chand
Guntur
Respondent : Shri Sanjay Jaiswal, CPIO
Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)
Mumbai
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal/complaint:
RTI application filed on : 31.10.2012
PIO replied on : 11.12.2012
First Appeal filed on : 30.01.2013
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : No order passed
Second Appeal/complaint received on : 21.06.2013
Information sought:
Complainant sought information regarding film publicity designs cleared by Film Publicity Screening Committee.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present and are heard through video conference. The complainant sought the above information by filing an RTI application dated 31.10.2012. PIO vide letter dated 11.12.2012, informed the appellant that he did not ask any information through his RTI application and informed that CBFC is primarily concerned with certification of movies, promos, trailers etc. He also informed him that CBFC has no authority on Film Chambers of Commerce; hence, they cannot give any directions to them to put publicity designs clearance on their website and advised the complainant to approach the appropriate forum. Being not satisfied with the response of the public authority, complainant filed the present complaint before the Commission.
The complainant requested to direct the authority to publish film publicity designs cleared by Film Publicity Screening Committee u/s 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act on their website.
Respondent reiterated their earlier stand and submitted that they do not deal with the publicity designs, so they were not in a position to publish the same on their website. He stated that Film Chambers of Commerce give design clearance and they are the custodian of the information.
Decision:
After hearing both parties and on perusal of record, the Commission is of the view that the response of the CPIO is appropriate and does not find any merit in the complaint of the complainant.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) 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.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar