Central Information Commission
Dr Prakash Agrawal vs Department Of Justice on 29 July, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/JUSTC/A/2023/624875
Dr Prakash Agrawal ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Department of Justice ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.07.2024
Date of Decision : 25.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.03.2023
PIO replied on : 10.04.2023
First Appeal filed on : 13.04.2023
First Appellate Order on : 24.04.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 26.05.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. Kindly provide ACTION TAKEN REPORT on my email dated 28.02.2023 by Hon'ble Secretary & other concerned authorities of Department of Justice till date (Email sent to email ids (Copy of email attached in supporting documents that sent on official email ids:- [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
2. Kindly provide copy of rules & regulations of law under which an informer / Witness or whistleblower can be bound (By court order & arrest warrants) to appear before the court for recording his/her statement in concerned matters multiple times without realizing his/her pain & contribution as an Aware Indian Citizen.
3. Kindly provide copy of rules & regulations of law under which an informer/evidence or whistleblower can protect his/her self-respect if feels harassed by a concerned Matter or Judicial Officer in the name of judicial process instead of appreciation. Also requested to provide copy of the rights of an informer/Witness or whistleblower for his/her protection in Judicial System when raised his/her voice against Public & Nation Interest Issue related to Crime Control."
The CPIO vide letter dated 10.04.2023 replied as under:-
"The information asked by you does not comes under the purview of CPIO. Therefore, the CPIO has no inputs to provide"Page 1 of 3
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.04.2023. The FAA vide order dated 24.04.2023 stated as under:-
"Your query relates to witness/whistle blower protection. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, CVC and DOPT would be the right agencies to provide details about protection offered under Whistle Blowers Protection Act. Department of Justice does not deal with the subject matter and cannot therefore provide inputs for the same."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 19.07.2024 has been received from the Appellant alleging that he has been subject to judicial harassment.
Written submission dated 18.07.2024 has been received from the PIO, reiterating the above reply and emphasising that the email dated 28.02.2023 referred by the Appellant in his RTI application was not received. However, after going through the document attached with the RTI application, it is noted that no information has been sought by the Appellant, he has only made some suggestions.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Smt. Amarjeet Sroa - US was present during hearing. Both parties present during hearing reiterated their respective contentions with the Respondent repeating the fact that the email dated 28.02.2023 referred by the Appellant in his RTI application was not received. The Appellant insisted that he sought accurate response with respect to the queries raised by him.
Decision Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent to furnish a revised reply to the Appellant stating the action taken with respect to the query number 1, within four weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter. No further intervention is warranted under the RTI Act in this case.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
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) Page 2 of 3 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)