Central Information Commission
Commodore Lokesh K Batra (Retd) vs Election Commission Of India on 17 June, 2022
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ECOMM/A/2020/668901
Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd) ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Under Secretary, ECI, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri Anup Kumar - US, Shri Amit
Vishwakarma - SO and Shri Prince Kumar - SSA
Date of Hearing : 15.06.2022
Date of Decision : 17.06.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.11.2019
PIO replied on : 29.01.2020
First Appeal filed on : 07.02.2020
First Appellate Order on : 06.03.2020
2ndAppeal/complaintdated : 24.04.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.11.2019 seeking information on the following point:-Page 1 of 3
The PIO/Under Secretary, ECI, New Delhi vide letter dated 27.12.2019 replied to the Appellant stating that the information could be procured from records available with the public authority, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act in 12 pages on payment of Rs. 2/- per page. By a subsequent letter dated 29.01.2020, the PIO/ECI furnished 4 pages of Note portion (9 to 11) and 12 pages of Correspondence (till page No. 97) on submitting documentation fee.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.02.2020. The FAA/Sr. Principal Secretary vide order dated 06.03.2020 held as under:-
A reply dated 26.02.2020 from the CPIO/US, ECI is found on record, annexed with which is a certified copy of a counter affidavit filed by the ECI before the Apex Court in WP(C) No. 880/17 in the case of Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.. A list has been filed with the Affidavit showing status of filing of electoral bond details by political parties in a sealed cover as per directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Still aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are present and heard through video conference and Page 2 of 3 Appellant reiterated his contention stating that he has received part of the information sought by him and insisted that if there is any more information, the same may be provided to him. He contended that perusal of file notings and correspondence side documents indicate that there has to be a linked file/part file or new file on the related subject where the rest of matter has been processed.
Respondent on the other hand averred that whatever information is available on record, had been duly furnished to the Appellant and the same set of records were even produced before the Court. There is no other part file in the custody of the Respondent public authority which can be provided under the RTI Act to the Appellant, in response to his query.
Decision Upon analyzing the aforementioned facts of the case, it is evident that information held by the Respondent public authority, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been provided to the Appellant. The only question which remains is about the Appellant's contention about non furnishing of the "linked file/part file or new file on the related subject where the rest of matter has been processed". The Respondent has stated that there is no other record/information available with them, with respect to the Appellant's queries.
In the given circumstances, the Respondent is hereby directed to furnish an affidavit on a non judicial stamp paper deposing clearly that no further information viz. linked file/part file or new file on the related subject exists in official records with them which can be provided under the RTI Act. The affidavit should be furnished by the Respondent within three weeks of receipt of this order with a copy marked to the Commission by 15.07.2022. It is made clear that non-compliance of these directions shall attract appropriate action, as per law.
The appeal is disposed off with the above observations.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3