Central Information Commission
Om Prakash vs Department Of Legal Affairs on 9 August, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DOLAF/C/2023/628612
Shri Om Prakash निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Department of Legal Affairs ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.08.2024
Date of Decision : 06.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 26.05.2023
PIO replied on : 29.05.2023
First Appeal filed on : - -
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 11.06.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 26.05.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Petitioner in Person PIP in Criminal Contempt Petition with Provisional Application No. 14051 dated 22.05.2023 against Union of India before Supreme Court of India is seeking following information from Shri R. Venkataramani Attorney General of India AGI under RTI Act 2005
1. Why AGI did not pick up the urgent bail matter phone call of PIP made over his official phone number 011 23383254, 20818150, 23070205 available in the public domain dated 24th May and 25th May 2023
2. Why all twenty one Solicitors General of different High Courts across the Country either refused or prefer not to pick up the phone calls of PIP in urgent bail matter to rescue the State Prostitution Victims dated 24 th and 25th May 2023
3. Why instead of supplying a Consent Letter for Criminal Contempt Petition, Shri R. Venkataramani Attorney General of India has preferred to repeat the Gang Rape events of 16th May 2023 on 25th May 2023 at 18.50pm at Sonaili Railway Station under Divisional Railway Manager Katihar in North Frontier Railway Zone of Indian Railway Network against State Victims
4. Why Union of India is suppressing the rescue and sustaining the illicit sex trade of rescued State Prostitution Victims rescued with an active help of Supreme Page 1 of 3 Court of India in Child Prostitution Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition Criminal 242 of 2021
5. What is the STAND AND POLICY of Union of India against the State Prostitution Victims
6. Why Consent Letter for e filed Criminal Contempt Petition with Provisional Application no. 14051 dated 22.05.2023 against Union of India before Supreme Court of India has NOT been supplied by Shri R. Venkataramani Attorney General of India to the PIP yet
7. When Consent Letter for e filed Criminal Contempt Petition with Provisional Application no. 14051 dated 22.05.2023 against Union of India before Supreme Court of India will be supplied by Shri R. Venkataramani Attorney General of India to the PIP in urgent bail matter to rescue the State Prostitution Victims and his own female family members and minor daughters from the clutches of Cruel, Coercive and Barbaric State."
The CPIO, Department of Legal Affairs vide letter dated 29.05.2023 replied as under:-
"That, as per the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, the basic function of this Department is to, inter-alia, tender advice to Ministries/Departments of Government of India on Legal matters. The information sought by you is in the nature of queries amounting to seeking legal advice and hence not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 31.07.2024 has been received from the complainant and duly taken on record.
A detailed self explanatory written submission dated 24.07.2024 has been received from the PIO, reiterating the reply sent and stating that information sought by the complainant was in fact in the nature of seeking legal advice and questioning the act/omission on the part of the Attorney General of India. The PIO has vide the reply dated 29.05.2023 clearly stated their stance.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Divya - DLA was present during hearing.
The Complainant contended that he is not satisfied with the information furnished to him and requested that the Respondent may be directed to provide information sought by him.
The Respondent reiterated their contentions from the PIO's reply and the detailed written submission dated 24.07.2024 filed before the Commission, duly supported by the relevant annexures stating that the information as deemed Page 2 of 3 appropriate under the terms and conditions of the RTI Act, had already been furnished to the Complainant.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing submissions averments of both parties, it is noted that appropriate reply had been sent by the Respondent, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
It is noted that the written submission dated 24.07.2024 filed by the Respondent before the Commission contains detailed, comprehensive and self explanatory information. Hence, the Commission hereby directs the PIO to send the Complainant a copy of the written submission dated 24.07.2024 with all the annexures as filed before the Commission, through speed post, within two weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission, within one week thereafter.
The Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, wherein the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. From the deliberation between parties, it appears that the Respondent had sent responses based on information available on record with them, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case and hence no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in this case.
Hence the case is disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya(हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 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)