Central Information Commission
Mr.Rajni Singh vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 20 October, 2010
Central Information Commission
Room No. 5, Club Building, Near Post Office
Old J.N.U. Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel No: 26161997
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2010/000437
Name of Appellant : Miss. Rajni Singh
(The Appellant was present)
Name of Respondent : M/o Home Affairs
(Represented by Sh,. J. L. Chugh, J.S.
and
Sh. Rakesh Jhingan, S.O. )
The matter was heard on : 20.10.2010
ORDER
Miss. Rajni Singh, the Appellant, vide RTI application dated 18.08.2009, sought following information: "(i). Kindly provide me all the actions taken and communication made till date in reference to Public Grievance Petition of Ms Rajni Singh, Advocate, Delhi High Court regarding grant of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecution of Government servants for the offences committed under Section 119 of IPC in the interest of "We the People of India".
(ii). On what ground the grant of sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. in reference to Public Grievance Petition of Ms. Rajni Singh, Advocate, Delhi is delayed/not granted till date."
The CPIO, vide letter dated 14.09.2009, replied as follows: "2. Reply to Point No. (i) to (iii): A Public Grievance Petition of Ms Rajni Singh was received on 24.02;2009 through Cabinet Secretariat regarding sanction under section 197 of Cr.P.C., 1973. As, Judicial Division of this Ministry is concerned only for issuing sanction under Section 188 of Cr.P.C., 1973, the petition was referred to Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT) dated 26.02.2009 (copy enclosed) for appropriate action and the same has been received back with comments that the subject matter of the petition did not pertain to DOPT. Then, the file was referred to ministry of Law & Justice on 22.05.2009 for their advice in the matter which has been received on 27.08.2009. The matter has been taken up with the Cabinet Secretariat as advised by the Ministry of Law & Justice."
Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the Appellant filed a present appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). the FAA / Jt. Secretary, vide letter dated 20.06.2010, replied as follows: "(2). Reply to Point No. (i): Your petition seeking sanction for prosecution u/s 197 of Cr.P.C. was examined in this Ministry in consultation with the different adepartments of Government of India and rejected. Copies of all communications (total 12 pages) made during examination are enclosed.
(3). Reply to Point No. (iii): After examination of your petition in this Ministry in consultation with other departments of Government of India, no case for prosecution was made out against the person indicated in the petition. Therefore, the petition was rejected."
Finally not satisfied with the replies of the PIO and FAA, the Appellant has filed a second appeal before the Commission.
During the hearing the Appellant submits that she has not been provided the grounds for not granting sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. , in reference to the Public Grievance Petition.
In her second appeal also, the Appellant pleads that there cannot be any order without reasons. On the other hand the Respondent submits that, complete requisite information available on record, and permissible under the RTI Act, has already been provided to the Appellant and nothing remains to be furnished to the Appellant.
After hearing the parties and on perusal of the relevant documents the Commission finds that the complete requisite information available on record and permissible under the RTI Act has already been furnished to the Appellant. As far as the submission of the Appellant is concerned, the Commission is of the view that the FAA has categorically informed the Appellant in reference to reply on Point No. (iii): After examination of your petition in this Ministry in consultation with other departments of Government of India, no case for prosecution was made out against the person indicated in the petition. Therefore, the petition was rejected".
Hence, in view of the above the Commission finds no reason to interfere in the replies of the Respondents.
With these observations the matter is disposed of accordingly.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 20.10.2010