Central Information Commission
Inder Singh vs Central Information Commission on 21 September, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/CICOM/A/2021/637305
In the matter of
Inder Singh ... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
RTI Cell, Central Information Commission,
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi, Delhi 110067
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 13/07/2021 CPIO replied on : 28/07/2021 First appeal filed on : 28/07/2021 First Appellate Authority order : 16/08/2021 Second Appeal dated : 17/08/2021 Date of Hearing : 21/09/2022 Date of Decision : 21/09/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Subodh Kumar, Private Secretary and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information:
- Whether action can be taken under Sec.219 of IPC or Section 197 of Cr.PC against the public authority, PIO or FAA, for furnishing false report under the RTI Act to the Central Information Commission? Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.1
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant was not present at the VC venue despite due service of notice on 14.09.2022 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED024242925IN. The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was given vide letter dated 28.07.2021.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 28.07.2021 guided the appellant to the website where the RTI Act copy is available and stated that no additional information is available. The FAA vide order dated 16.08.2021 held that as per Sec 2(f) only available information can be given.
The Commission finds it pertinent to mention here that the information sought is in the nature of seeking answers and clarifications and therefore, is not information as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. Decision:
In view of the fact that no information under Sec 2(f) was sought, the appellant was suitably informed. Therefore, there is no merit in this second appeal.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ$भ&मा'णत स)या*पत & त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 2 3