Central Information Commission
Shri Pavan Sachdeva vs Department Of Legal Affairs on 22 July, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000391
Dated, the 22nd July, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Pavan Sachdeva
Respondents : Department of Legal Affairs
This matter came up for hearing on 07.07.2009 in second-appeal. In response to Commission's notice dated 04.06.2009, appellant was absent whereas the respondents were represented by Shri M.K. Sharma, CPIO.
2. Appellant's RTI-application dated 23.12.2008 sought the following information:-
"certified copy of legal opinion provided by Ministry of Law & Justice in regard to the case no.RC 25(A)/95-Bom registered on 4.4.1995 against SEBI officials, the said opinion was obtained in 1998 on the reference regarding sanction for prosecution of Shri M.D. Patel and two other SEBI officials which was sent by Director, SEBI vide its letter dt.17.10.1997 and the said opinion was forwarded to the Director, CBI."
3. CPIO informed him through his communication dated 27.01.2009 that the opinion of the Ministry of Law sought by departments of the government or its organizations was recorded on the files of the opinion-seeking Department / organisation and no record of it was maintained in the Ministry of Law. Appellate Authority, in his decision dated 06.03.2009 upheld the contention of the CPIO and advised the appellant to approach the Department of Personnel & Training of the Government of India in this matter.
4. Appellant has now approached the Commission in second-appeal against the above order. Apart from his other pleas, appellant has questioned the conclusion of the Appellate Authority that the advice of the Department of Law given to a Department or an organisation of the Central Government is barred under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act being fiduciary in nature.
AT-22072009-19.doc Page 1 of 2
5. It is pointless to examine whether the requested information attracts any of the exemption-sections of the RTI Act in the face of a categorical assertion by the Department of Law and Justice ⎯ the respondents ⎯ that the requested information was not in their control within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the RTI Act. They have explained that under the extant procedure, the advice of the Ministry of Law sought by a department or an organisation of the government was recorded on the file which was sent back to the advice-seeking Department / organisation. Such advice tendered on the files of those departments / organizations was not retained in the Department of Legal Affairs' records. In view of the above, such an advice tendered by the Department cannot be said to be held by the department under Section 2(j) of the RTI Act.
6. Considering the above submission, I agree with the Department of Legal Affairs that the requested information is not in their control and, therefore, they cannot be expected to disclose it to the appellant. The respondents informed the Commission that appellant had also separately approached the CBI and the Department of Personnel & Training for the same information, who had in turn requested the Ministry of Law to furnish any information if they had it in their control. Ministry had advised the CBI and the DoPT that they held no such information.
7. In view of the fact that the respondents don't even hold the requested information within Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, they cannot be expected to disclose it to the appellant.
8. Appeal rejected.
9. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-22072009-19.doc Page 2 of 2