Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mamta Verma vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 4 March, 2024

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                     के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                                 बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2023/600238

Smt. Mamta Verma                                                    ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                     VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs                                  ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                            :   25.01.2024
Date of Decision                           :   25.01.2024
Chief Information Commissioner             :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :             17.08.2022
PIO replied on                    :             13.09.2022
First Appeal filed on             :             10.10.2022
First Appellate Order on          :             NA
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :             04.01.2023

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.08.2022 seeking information on the following points:-

"1. What is the status of the processing of application in FCRA File No. II/21022/83(0058)/2019-FCRA-II

2. Please provide a complete copy of FCRA File No. II/21022/83(0058)/2019- FCRA-II

3. Please provide a copy of all files notes from FCRA File No. II/20122/ 94(0195-01)/2016, if any.

4. Please provide the reason for delay in resolution of FCRA File No. II/21022/83(0058)/2019-FCRA-II

5. Please provide the steps required for resolution of the delay in FCRA File. NoII/21022/83(0058)/2019-FCRA-II

6. Which person and / or which authority, office, department, body or ministry can be approached in case of an undue delay in resolution of an application?

7. Please provide a copy of all decisions, orders, enquiries and directions for File No II/ 21022/83(0058)/2019-FCRA-II."

The CPIO vide letter dated 13.09.2022 replied as under:-

"Nature of the application is of grievance redressal. Such grievances are not admissible under RTI. Further, CPIO is not required to create or compile the information and also not required to furnish information which requires drawing of inferences and/or to interpret information."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.10.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the Respondent stating that the FAA adjudicated the First Appeal vide order dated 24.01.2024 with a direction to issue revised reply. In compliance of the FAA's order, the CPIO issued a letter dated 24.01.2024 stating as under:

The details of File No. 1/21022/83(0058)/2019-FCRA-I and 1/20122/94(0195-01)/2016, cannot be provided to the RTI applicant, as these files are processed on VPN token, which includes the comments of security agencies, which are exempted under RTI Act, 2005.

Further, the above mentioned file nos. relates to the Registration and Prior permission application of the association SFLC.IN, which have been disposed of as per FCRA Act and Rules, 2010.

However, the status of application may also be seen from "Track your application" link https://fcraonline.nic.inHome/Track MyApplication.aspx Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Shri Gyan Prakash Tripathi represented the Appellant Respondent: Shri K Sanjayan - Director/CPIO was present during the hearing.

The Appellant's representative contended that the Respondent had furnished the reply well beyond the stipulated period of time, only on 24.01.2024. He further pointed out that the Respondents had not cited the appropriate provision of law, while denying information and also cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhyaman Broadcasting Ltd. vs. UOI whereby it has been held that national security concerns won't absolutely abrogate principles of natural justice and no blanket immunity can be claimed in such cases.

The Respondent contended that the status of the applications had already been published on the website https://fcraonline.nic.inHome/Track MyApplication.aspx. It was also averred by the Respondent that the copy of the Files and notes cannot be furnished since it contains comments of security agencies, which are exempt from the purview of the RTI Act.

Decision:

In the light of the aforementioned deliberations between parties, the Commission notes that the decision cited by the Appellant's representative is distinguishable from the facts of the case at hand, since the decision does not emanate out of queries raised under the RTI Act. Thus the decision is not applicable to the facts of the case at hand.

After examining the facts of the case at hand, the Respondent is hereby directed to furnish a revised reply to the Appellant about point number 1 of the RTI application by the Appellant, strictly in terms of the provisions of the Act, within four weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard within one week thereafter. Since remaining queries have been already appropriately replied by the Respondent, hence no further intervention is required.

The appeal is disposed off with these directions.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3