Central Information Commission
Om Prakash Kashiram vs Department Of Space on 22 July, 2021
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOEAF/A/2019/159834
CIC/DSPCE/A/2019/162148
CIC/MOEAF/A/2019/132506
Shri Omprakash Kashiram ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Ministry of External Affairs
PIO
Department of Space
PIO Director (Pakistan),
Ministry of External Affairs
PIO
Dy. Secretary, President Secretariat,
Date of Hearing : 20.07.2021
Date of Decision : 22.07.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
159834 09.09.2019 23.09.2019 02.10.2019 19.11.2019 11.12.2019
162148 09.09.2019 20.09.2019 29.10.2019 26.11.2019 24.12.2019
132506 16.03.2019 30.04.2019 09.05.2019 - 09.07.2019
Since the RTI applications in Second Appeal Nos
CIC/MOEAF/A/2019/159834 and CIC/DSPCE/A/2019/162148 are
identical, the above mentioned cases are clubbed together for hearing and
disposal.
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/MOEAF/A/2019/159834 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.09.2019 seeking information on the following 09 points regarding communication failure of Chandrayan-2 Mission:-Page 1 of 6
1. The complaint /protest not lodged by ISRO and Ministry of External Affairs to concern countries those having frequencies guided technologies under which they have stopped the communication of ISRO with Chandrayan -2 as per the my knowledge.
2. ISRO is using type of communication with type of frequencies under which ISRO is communicating with Chandrayan-2, Vikram and Lander.
3. Name of Communication system ISRO is using for communication with Chandrayan-2, Vikram and Lander from last one and half months.
4. Reasons for not done research for acquired develop the frequencies guided technologies which can do any work any time and where means inside the earth, moon, sun and or any space or sky.
Etc. The PIO /Under Secretary (RTI) vide letter dated 23.09.2019 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.10.2019. The FAA/Director(ADP&RTI) vide order dated 19.11.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/DSPCE/A/2019/162148 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.09.2019 seeking information on following 09 points regarding communication failure of Chandrayan-2 Mission:-
5. The complaint /protest not lodged by ISRO and Ministry of External Affairs to concern countries those having frequencies guided technologies under which they have stopped the communication of ISRO with Chandrayan -2 as per the my knowledge.
6. ISRO is using type of communication with type of frequencies under which ISRO is communicating with Chandrayan-2, Vikram and Lander.
7. Name of Communication system ISRO is using for communication with Chandrayan-2, Vikram and Lander from last one and half months.
8. Reasons for not done research for acquired develop the frequencies guided technologies which can do any work any time and where means inside the earth, moon, sun and or any space or sky.
Etc. The PIO vide letter dated 20.09.2019 replied as under:-
Page 2 of 6Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.10.2019. The FAA/Joint Secretary vide order dated 26.11.2019 observed as under:-
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing A written submission has been received from the CPIO and US, M/o External Affairs vide letter dated 08.07.2021 wherein it was stated that the queries mentioned in the RTI application were quickly responded to. Some of the queries did not fall within the purview of the definition of information u/s 2 (f). It was stated that query no 1 was hypothetical as it was seeking opinion on Appellant's knowledge, query no 2 is a vague statement, query no 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 pertain to other Public Authorities which the Appellant is aware of and query no 2 seeks reason which is not allowed as per RTI Act. A reference was also made to the decision of the Commission in Dinesh vs Lieutenant Governor's Office dated 29.05.2020 wherein it was observed that the O/o the Chief Minister cannot be expected to function like a post office and transfer RTI applications particularly when the Appellant is aware of the actual custodian of information.
A written submission has been received from the CPIO, U R Rao Satellite Centre, D/o Space vide letter dated 16.07.2021 and the same has been taken on record.
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.
The Appellant remained absent despite prior intimation. The Respondent represented by Smt Archana Monga, SO, M/o External Affairs; Shri Pattabi Raman N, CPIO, UR Rao Satellite Centre (Bangalore) and Shri Ramanathan V, Programme Director, UR Rao Satellite Centre (Bangalore participated in the hearing through audio conference.
Page 3 of 6Shri Ramanathan V stated that vide written submission dated 16.07.2021 point wise information has been provided, a copy of which was also provided to the Appellant. In the said written submission it was inter alia also mentioned that reply to the instant RTI application was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 31.10.2019 and that many other RTI applications on similar queries was filed by the Appellant which were appropriately replied to.
Decision In the light of the above facts, it is noted that information as available on official records and as permissible under the RTI Act, had been duly provided to the Appellant. The PIO's reply dated 31.10.2019 has neither been annexed with nor mentioned in the Second Appeal and the Appellant has not even substantiated the cause of his dissatisfaction with the reply provided. In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that no further directions are deemed necessary in this case since a self explanatory reply has been provided by the Respondent, in terms of the provisions of the Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
(3) CIC/MOEAF/A/2019/132506 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.03.2019 seeking information on 09 points regarding case of Shri Kulbushan Jadhav in the International Court of Justice for release from a Pakistani Jail. Shri Kulbhushan Jadhav is still in a Pakistani Jail and the Indian public is unaware of the final outcome of the judgment of ICJ:-
Etc. The Director (Pakistan), PAI Division, M/o External Affairs vide letter dated 30.04.2019 replied as under:-Page 4 of 6
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.05.2019 and the same remained unheard.
Feeling 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 Dy Secretary (Pakistan), PAI Division M/o External Affairs vide letter dated 13.07.2021 wherein it was stated that the first appeal was responded to on 16.05.2019 concurring with the response of the CPIO. It was stated that the matter was sub judice at the time when the RTI application was filed. However, the ICJ delivered its verdict in the case on 17.07.2019. Thus a revised point wise reply was provided in the written submission. It was also stated that in his Second Appeal, the Appellant has mentioned that "he has opted not to attend the hearing and not authorised any representative to attend the hearing either." In this context reference was made to the pronouncements of CIC regarding measures to discourage frivolous cases of routine second appeals without any regard to public money or resources. A reference was also made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors.
A written submission has also been received from the CPIO and OSD, President's Secretariat vide letter dated 13.07.2021 wherein it was stated that the RTI application was transferred to the M/o External Affairs vide letter dated 26.03.2019. Action on first appeal was not taken as the first appeal was forwarded to the M/o External Affairs by another section of the Secretariat treating the same as a petition though no action lies on the part of the Secretariat.
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.
The Appellant remained absent despite prior intimation. The Respondent represented by Shri R.K. Sharma, OSD and PIO, President's Secretariat and Ms. Gitanjali Brandon, Dy Secretary (Pakistan), M/o External Affairs participated in the hearing through audio conference. Shri Singh reiterated his written submission and stated that the since the queries sought pertained to the M/o External Affairs hence the RTI application was forwarded to them. Ms Brandon reiterated her above mentioned written submissions and stated that information as per available record has been provided to the Appellant.
Page 5 of 6Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission is of the view that adequate information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. In the given circumstances, the Commission is not inclined to pass any further direction in the matter.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 6 of 6