Central Information Commission
Nutan Thakur vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 20 July, 2021
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2019/152011
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154596
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/160054
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/160053
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/160078
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/160077
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/160083
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/117533
Dr. Nutan Thakur ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
Through: Shri Amitabh Thakur-husband
VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
2. PIO, NIA
3. PIO, Cabinet Secretariat
Through: Shri Praveen Kumar - Director, CTCR
Division, Shri P S Dangwal-DS(Admin.) and Shri
A K Dhyani - US(Coord.-II),
Ms. Jaya Roy- Superintendent of Police, NIA,
Shri Ram Prabhakar -US, Cabinet Secretariat,
Shri V S Rana - Director/CPIO-IS-I Division
Date of Hearing : 19.07.2021
Date of Decision : 20.07.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
152011 14.08.2019 09.09.2019 15.09.2019 26.09.2019 29.10.2019
Page 1 of 14
154596 15.08.2019 - 16.09.2019 - 14.11.2019
160054 25.08.2019 11.09.2019 15.09.2019 - 12.12.2019
160053 25.08.2019 11.09.2019 15.09.2019 - 12.12.2019
160078 25.08.2019 11.09.2019 15.09.2019 - 12.12.2019
160077 25.08.2019 11.09.2019 15.09.2019 - 12.12.2019
160083 22.08.2019 30.09.2019 05.10.2019 04.11.2019 12.12.2019
117533 27.11.2018 14.12.2018 08.01.2019 30.01.2019 15.04.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/152011 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated14.08.2019 seeking information on the following points about the Man vs. Wild episode shot with Sri Narendra Modi at Jim Corbett National Park in Uttarakhand, as available with Ministry of Home Affairs-
1. When was the episode/program shot, as per the official records.
2. Was it an official or personal program, as per the official records.
3. Was any tour program sent to the concerned authorities and the State Government etc as regards this tour/program. If yes, kindly provide a copy of the tour program.
4. Who accompanied Sri Modi during this tour, as per the official records.
5. Were SPG security personnel there with Sri Modi during this shooting/episode.
6. If SPG personnel were not there, was any permission given by the concerned authorities in this regards.
7. Kindly provide a copy of the related documents (Notesheet and correspondence) of the concerned file of MHA as regards this tour.
The CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs transferred the RTI application online to the Cabinet Secretariat and the Prime Minister's Office vide registration No. CABST/R/2019/80114 and PMOIN/R/2019/80240 respectively.
The Cabinet Secretariat vide online reply dated 09.09.2019 denied the information claiming exemption under Section 24 of the RTI Act.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.09.2019. The FAA vide online reply dated 26.09.2019 stated as under:-
SPG is a security organization as per Second Schedule Notified by GOI, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training dated 25.09.2005. The Information sought under RTI cannot be granted as it is exempted U/s 24 of RTI Act, 2005.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 2 of 14
Facts arising during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated and are duly heard through audio conference, wherein the Appellant objected to the transfer of the RTI application to the SPG, stating that the RTI application was filed before the MHA, seeking information specifically from the Ministry, not SPG. The Respondent from Cabinet Secretariat present during the hearing stated that the actual custodian of the information sought is not the Cabinet Secretariat, but the PMO. Hence the queries could not have been answered by the Cabinet Secretariat.
Decision Upon hearing averments of both parties, the Commission notes that exactly the same set of queries about the Man vs. Wild episode shot with Sri Narendra Modi at Jim Corbett National Park in Uttarakhand had been raised by the same Appellant before the PMO, vide RTI application dated 15.08.2019. Three Second Appeals had been filed by the Appellant before this Commission, emanating out of the same subject matter, which had been heard by the Commission and decided by a speaking order dated 18.02.2021 in file Nos. CIC/PMOIN/A/2019/154577, CIC/PMOIN/A/2019/154591 and CIC/PMOIN/A/2019/154617. In the said decision, it had been noted that the PIO, PMO had furnished all the available information vide communication dated 08.02.2021 to the Appellant.
Since the actual custodian of information, viz. the PMO had provided all the available information to the Appellant as discussed above, the substantive issue had already been addressed some time ago. In the given circumstances, the Commission finds no reasonable cause to re-adjudicate the matter at hand.
(2) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/154596 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.08.2019 seeking information on the following 06 points:-
As per the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) website, the official twitter account of Sri Amit Shah, Home Minister on MHA website is-
https://twitter.Com/AmitShah, that of Sri G Kishan Reddy is https://twitter.com/kishanreddybjp and that of Sri N N Rai is https://twitter.com/nityanandraibjp Kindly provide the following information as regards above twitter accounts-
1. Has the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) officially accepted these 03 personal twitter accounts as the official twitter accounts of MHA.
2. Does the MHA accept the tweets from these 03 twitter accounts as the official version from MHA.
3. In contrast, are the above 03 twitter accounts the personal twitter accounts of these 03 political leaders.Page 3 of 14
4. If they are the official twitter accounts of MHA, kindly provide a copy of the documents in the official file related with acceptance of these 03 twitter accounts as MHA official twitter accounts.
5.If they are not official twitter accounts of MHA, kindly provide a copy of the documents in the official file related with presenting these 03 twitter accounts on MHA official website as twitter accounts of these 03 political leaders.
6. If they are not official twitter accounts of MHA and yet present on MHA official website, to what extent the MHA accepts their tweets as official statement of MHA, as being the tweets of the 03 ministers of MHA.
The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.09.2019, claiming that no reply had been received from the PIO.
Aggrieved over non adjudication of the First Appeal, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(3) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/160054 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.08.2019 seeking information on the following 04 points:-
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) website profile of the present Home Minister of India, Sri Amit Shah says among other things - Amit Shah has risen to Head the ruling Party of India literally from the grass roots. Initially, he joined the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and later became an active member of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), to become its Ahmedabad city unit secretary. Later, he also shouldered the responsibilities of Secretary as well as Vice President of BJP,Gujarat State. In 1997, he became National Treasurer of the Bharatiya Janata YuvaMorcha (BJYM).His dedication, dexterity and above all result oriented performance made him In Charge of several election campaigns of the National Leaders including that of L K Advani in 1991, Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1996, both in Gandhi Nagar Parliamentary constituency. No wonder, when Shri Narendra Modi had decided to contest his first Assembly Election in 2001 from Rajkot-2 assembly constituency, Amit Shah was again the Campaign Chief.
In above background, kindly provide the following information as regards above profile on MHA website-
1. As per official records of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), who wrote this profile/words for the Home Minister.
2. As per the records, what formed the basis for writing this profile.
3. As per official records of MHA, by whom was this profile of the Home Minister finally approved.
4. Kindly provide the copy of the official file in the MHA, including Notesheet and correspondence with various offices, related with the above profile/words of the present Home Minister.
The CPIO vide online reply dated 11.09.2019 replied as under:-
The applicant has sought a copy of the official file of MHA related to the profile of the Union Home Minister. As per the definition of file in Manual of Office Procedure, a file is a collection of papers on a specific subject, assigned a Page 4 of 14 number and consisting of one or more of the following parts, viz. Notes, Correspondence, Appendices to Notes/correspondence. As per the prevalent practice, there is no such file, as sought by the applicant with the undersigned CPIO.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.09.2019.
Subsequently, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal claiming that the First Appeal was not adjudicated.
(4) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/160053 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.08.2019 seeking information on the following 04 points:-
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) website profile of the present Home Minister of India, Sri Amit Shah says among other things- Amit Shah was born to Smt. Kusumben and Shri Anil Chandra Shah, in an affluent Gujarati family on 22nd October 1964. Amit Shah represents the emerging New India in every sense of the term. Leading the Party from the front for the last five years, he has been remarkably successful in expanding BJP organisational foot print, securing one electoral victory after the other in State assembly elections. During his tenure, Party has become the world's largest political party with over 10 crore registered members. In above background, kindly provide the following information as regards above profile on MHA website-
1. As per official records of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), who wrote this profile/words for the Home Minister.
2. As per the records, what formed the basis for writing this profile.
3. As per official records of MHA, by whom was this profile of the Home Minister finally approved.
4. Kindly provide the copy of the official file in the MHA, including Notesheet and correspondence with various offices, related with the above profile/words of the present Home Minister.
The CPIO vide online reply dated 11.09.2019 replied as under:-
The applicant has sought a copy of the official file of MHA related to the profile of the Union Home Minister. As per the definition of file in Manual of Office Procedure, a file is a collection of papers on a specific subject, assigned a number and consisting of one or more of the following parts, viz. Notes, Correspondence, Appendices to Notes/ correspondence. As per the prevalent practice, there is no such file, as sought by the applicant with the undersigned CPIO.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.09.2019 which was not adjudicated.Page 5 of 14
Thus aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(5) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/160078 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.08.2019 seeking the following information:-
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) website profile of the present State Home Minister of India, Sri G Kishan Reddy says among other things- G. Kishan Reddy, who people affectionately and reverentially call Kishananna, is a live example of what one can achieve through sheer determination and hard work. His calm demeanor betrays his inner strength. Elected as Member of Parliament in 17th Lok Sabha from Secunderabad Constituency, Telangana 2019. He won with a margin of 62,144 votes over his nearest rival. He was earlier a three time MLA and BJP Floor leader in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh Assembly, he earned a special niche for himself in the hearts and minds of people by foregrounding their aspirations and grievances and making sincere endeavor in anchoring them. In above background, kindly provide the following information as regards above profile on MHA website-
1. As per official records of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), who wrote this profile/words for the State Home Minister Sri Reddy.
2. As per the records, what formed the basis for writing this profile.
3. As per official records of MHA, by whom was this profile of the State Home Minister Sri Reddy finally approved.
4. Kindly provide the copy of the official file in the MHA, including Notesheet and correspondence with various offices, related with the above profile/words of the present State Home Minister Sri Reddy.
The CPIO vide online reply dated 11.09.2019 replied as under:-
The applicant has sought a copy of the official file of MHA related to the profile of the Minister of State Shri G Kishan Reddy. As per the definition of file in Manual of Office Procedure, a file is a collection of papers on a specific subject, assigned a number and consisting of one or more of the following parts, viz. Notes, Correspondence, Appendices to Notes/correspondence. As per the prevalent practice, there is no such file, as sought by the applicant with the undersigned CPIO.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.09.2019, which is claimed to have remained non-adjudicated.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(6) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/160077 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.08.2019 seeking the following information:-Page 6 of 14
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) website profile of the present State Home Minister of India, Sri G Kishan Reddy says among other things- As an MLA for three terms, he was guided by the self imposed ethic Honesty is motto and development is my path. Inspired by Nation-First conviction, he not merely worked hard for the development of his assembly constituency, but became a voice for a cross section of people in the assembly efficiently and effectively articulating their problems and striving for solutions. He focused on improving the living conditions of the people and indeed brought about perceptible change in many lives.
In above background, kindly provide the following information as regards above profile on MHA website-
1. As per official records of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), who wrote this profile/words for the State Home Minister Sri Reddy.
2. As per the records, what formed the basis for writing this profile.
3. As per official records of MHA, by whom was this profile of the State Home Minister Sri Reddy finally approved.
4. Kindly provide the copy of the official file in the MHA, including Notesheet and correspondence with various offices, related with the above profile/words of the present State Home Minister Sri Reddy.
The CPIO vide an online response dated 11.09.2019 replied as under:-
The applicant has sought a copy of the official file of MHA related to the profile of the Minister of State Shri G Kishan Reddy. As per the definition of file in Manual of Office Procedure, a file is a collection of papers on a specific subject, assigned a number and consisting of one or more of the following parts, viz. Notes, Correspondence, Appendices to Notes/ correspondence. As per the prevalent practice, there is no such file, as sought by the applicant with the undersigned CPIO.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.09.2019 which has not been adjudicated.
Thusaggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts arising during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated and are duly heard through audio conference. The Respondent stated that reply had been sent to the Appellant on 22.01.2020 by the Joint Secretary/FAA, relevant extracts whereof are as under:
"...The RTI Act does not cast any obligation to answer queries as in the above cases. The petitioner's right extends only to seek information as defined in Section 2(f) either by pinpointing the file, document, paper or record etc. or by mentioning the type of information as may be available with the specified Public Authority. In this connection, the proceedings of Central Information Commission in file No. CIC/AT/A/2006-00045 dated 21.04.2016 may kindly be referred to.."Page 7 of 14
At the Appellant's objection to the reply, the Respondent explained that information received from concerned Division is uploaded as it is, no separate file is created or maintained for the said purpose.
Decision Since the aforementioned five appeals deal with a similar subject matter viz. information about twitter accounts of Ministers in MHA, and have been responded to with similar replies, hence the matters are decided by a common order.
Upon perusal of the facts of the five appeals, mentioned hereinabove, it is noted that the Respondents have responded adequately, clarifying their respective views. In fact the response of the FAA is in line with various legal precedents, wherein it has been held time and again by the Courts that information does not mean every information, but it is only such information, which is recorded and stored and circulated by the public authority. A citizenhas a right to receive such information, which is held by or under the control of any public authority. Attention is drawn to the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay[Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011 dated 09.08.2011] wherein it was held as under:
35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.
This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses(f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant..............
37. .........Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty..."
Emphasis supplied In the light of the above discussion, the Commission notes that the reply by the PIO and FAA are self explanatory and require no further intervention. The five appeals mentioned hereinabove are disposed off accordingly.
Page 8 of 14(7) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/160083 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.08.2019 seeking the following information:-
As per a news article in The Hindu dated 21/08/2019, 3 NIA officers transferred on extortion charge- The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has transferred three officials after it received a complaint of misconduct against them, a spokesperson of the agency said. The three officials, including one of the rank of Superintendent of Police, have been accused of demanding Rs. 2 crore from a Delhi-based businessman in the Falah-e-Insaniyat Foundation (FIF) terror funding case, involving Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafiz Saeed. A complaint of misconduct was received by the NIA. An inquiry into the allegations is being conducted by an officer of the rank of DIG. In the meantime, the three officials have been transferred to ensure a fair probe, the spokesperson said. Kindly provide the following information as regards above news article-
1. As per official records of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), has the National Investigation Agency (NIA) intimated MHA about the above matter.
2. If yes, kindly provide a copy of the information provided by NIA to MHA.
3. Kindly also provide a copy of the Enquiry report in the matter.
4. What actions have so far been taken by NHA in the matter.
5. What directions have been given by MHA to NIA in this matter.
6. Has any criminal case been registered against the 03 officers.
7. Are there allegations against other officers in the given case.
8. Kindly provide the documents in the official file in MHA (including the Notesheet and the correspondence with various offices) related with the above matter.
Note- Kindly note that I seek information from MHA and not from NIA. Hence kindly respond as per your records and do not transfer it to NIA.
The CPIO, MHA, CTCR Division/NIA Desk vide reply dated 04.10.2019 replied as under:-
Page 9 of 14Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.10.2019. The FAA/Joint Secretary (CTCR) vide order dated 04.11.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Not satisfied with the reply, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts arising during the course of hearing:
Written submission dated 13.07.2021 has been received from Dr. Jaya Roy- CPIO/Asstt. Inspector General, NIA submitting the following, alongwith the supporting relevant documents:Page 10 of 14
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated and are duly heard through audio conference. The Appellant contended that the information was sought in public interest by him and it is held by the MHA, while it has been wrongly denied claiming that the information is held by NIA.
Respondent from the MHA clarified that as already informed to the Appellant, the actual custodian of information is NIA and hence the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act was followed. NIA vide reply dated 13.09.2019 had denied disclosure of the information, which had been duly conveyed to the Appellant. Representative from NIA is present for hearing and contended that that since the allegations of corruption were found to be unsubstantiated, none of the three officers had been transferred on the basis of a news article. She further emphasised that there is no public interest in disclosure of such information and hence it had been denied. She placed reliance on a recent decision dated 21.05.2021 by this Bench on the same subject matter, whereby the issue had been decided already by the Commission.
Decision Upon hearing averments of the parties and perusal of relevant records, it is noted that nine second appeals dealing with the same subject matter viz. a news article dated 21.08.2019 in the newspaper The Hindu about transfer of 3 NIA officers on extortion charges of demanding Rs.2 crore from a Delhi- based businessman in the Falah-e-Insaniyat Foundation (FIF) terror funding case, had been decided by this Bench vide decision dated 21.05.2021. The Appellant - Dr.Nutan Thakur had filed nine RTI applications dated 22.08.2019, four of which had been filed with MHA and transferred to the National Investigation Agency[NIA] in the said case, while in the instant case she has filed RTI application dated 22.08.2019 before the MHA seeking information on the same subject matter.
The Commission vide its decision dated 21.05.2021 had dismissed the nine second appeals being CIC/NIAGE/A/2020/101578 and Ors., with the following observation:
"..the Commission refers to the following observations made in an Page 11 of 14 earlier decision by this bench of the Commission in Rekha Munjal vs PIO, BSF,New Delhi (CIC/BDRSF/A/2019/153649) and (CIC/BDRSF/A/2019/106193)decided on 05.05.2020:
"It is an established factual position that the Respondent public authority is enlisted in Second Schedule of the RTI Act and as such, exempt fromprovisions of this Act under Section 24 of the Act. The only exception carvedout to the exemption is wherein information sought relates to allegations ofcorruption/human rights violations and approval to disclosure is accorded bythis Commission. The terms "allegation of corruption" and "violation of human rights" are not defined in the Act, it is thus open for the Commissionto decide the veracity of allegations on both counts on a case to case basis.The allegations of corruption and human rights violation should be construedto mean verifiable allegations, in other words, a mere allegation or perceptionof an individual about corruption or human rights violation is not sufficient inthe absence of any supporting material that proves such a charge in itsevidentiary value has strength. It is a well settled proposition that every RTIapplicant who utters the word 'corruption‟ or "violation of human rights‟does not become entitled to get information from public authorities exemptedunder Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. The onus of substantiating the allegationof corruption and human rights violation lies on the RTI applicant and'perception' is certainly no ground to agitate for right to information under theproviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act......"
In view of the fact that the substantive matter stands duly adjudicated by this Bench vide order dated 21.05.2021, there appears no reason for re-adjudication of the same issue once again.
(8) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/117533 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.11.2018 seeking the following information:-
Kindly provide the details of the various directions/instructions issued by the Minister and/or the State Minister of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to the officers of the Ministry or the various Central Police organizations or to other public authorities and to the Uttar Pradesh Government in the wake of the recent incidences in Ayodhya related with Dharma Sansad, to be followed by the Dharma Sansad in New Delhi in recent future.
Kindly provide the documents related with these directions/instructions.
The CPIO vide letter dated 14.12.2018 replied as under:-Page 12 of 14
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal 08.01.2019. The FAA/Joint Secretary (IS-I) vide order dated 30.01.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved over non receipt of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO/MHA, IS-I Division/Ayodhya Section vide letter dated 09.07.2021, reiterating the contents of the above responses.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated and are duly heard through audio conference. The Appellant contended that Respondent had simply denied disclosure of the information u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act without any justification and mentioned that the reply of the PIO was not in consonance with the Section 19(5) of the RTI Act. Respondent present for the hearing stated that reply in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act has been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
Considering the averments put forth by both parties and facts of the case, it is noted that query raised by the Appellant has been duly responded to by the Respondent in keeping with the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant's contention about justification for denial of information is misplaced in this case, in view of the specific legal provision invoked by the Respondent, which is self explanatory, in reference to the query. Therefore, no further direction is deemed necessary in this case.
The appeals are disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 13 of 14 Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 14 of 14