Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mr. D K Bhaumik vs Central Information Commission on 26 July, 2010

                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000543 dated 5-5-2009
                 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19

Appellant:            Shri D.K. Bhaumik
Respondent:           Central Information Commission (CIC)
                    Heard & Decision announced: 26.7.'10


FACTS

By an application of 15-1-09 Shri D.K. Bhaumik of Vidyasagar Sarani, Kolkata applied to the CPIO, CIC seeking the following information:

"(a) A photocopy of the complete index of all records (excluding litigation papers and litigation files), maintained by the public authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the said public authority') u/s 4 (1) (a) of the RTI Act.

(b) An original sample copy of the publication of 17 types of manuals (as specified in sections 4 (1) (b) (i) to 4 (1) (b) (xvii) of the RTI Act, published by the said public authority u/s 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act.

(c) Specific date of the said public authority's such publication of 17 manuals and specific dates of updating this publication every year u/s 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act.

(d) Full names, officials' designations, complete addresses, dates of birth and educational qualifications of all (i) Public Information Officers, (ii) Assistant Public Information Officers, and (iii) First Appellate Authorities of the said public authority under the RTI Act.

(e) All modes and manners of payment of the application fee and other fees to the said public authority under the RTI Act.

(f) Photo copies of all notifications in the official Gazette containing all rules (including all amendments till the date of supply of the said public authority, made u/s 28 of the RTI Act and

(g) All website addresses of the said public authority.

All pages of the written reply (ies) (including enclosures/ annexure) to this RTI application and the desired information may please be authenticated with dated signatures and rubber stamps and sent to the applicant by registered post In case the instant RTI application is decided to be transferred u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act read with its proviso, such transfer may please be made by registered post forwarding immediately a photocopy of its postal receipt with an intimation to the applicant by registered post."

To this Shri D.K. Bhaumik received a response from CPIO, Shri Tarun Kumar, JS, CIC dated 6-2-09 as follows:

"From the perusal of your application it is seen that it is addressed to the Central Information Commission but para 5 (a) of this application clearly points out to the fact that you are seeking information from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and fully aware of the Public Authority from whom the information is required i.e. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

Therefore, you are requested to apply under section 6 (1) of the RTI Act to the concerned Public Authority i.e. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and seek information from them. This is also clear from the fact that vide your RTI application dated 5.1.2009, you have asked similar questions about the Central Information Commission which is being separately replied.

Since, the Central Information Commission is not the custodian of the information you have asked for, your IPO is being returned to you."

Nevertheless, Shri D.K. Bhaumik moved an appeal before Shri Mohammed Haleem Khan, Secretary, CIC protesting that CPIO did not transfer the appellant's said RTI application or any part thereof to the concerned public authority under intimation to the appellant within the time limit of 5 days in gross violation of, inter alia, section 6 (3) of the RTI Act and its proviso. He has then pleaded as follows:

"Supply of the specific information sought for in paras 5 (a), 5 (b), 5

(c), 5 (d), 5 (e), 5 (f) and 5 (g) of the appellant's RTI Application dated 15.1.2009 to the appellant free of charge."

This appeal was found inadmissible as intimated to appellant Shri Bhaumik by the office of first Appellate Authority in a letter dated 27-3-2009:

"(i) The applicant is fully aware that the information sought by him under the above RTI Application relates to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

(ii) As per the clarifications issued by the Government of India vide Department of Personnel & Training Office Memorandum No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12th June, 2008 the applicant makes a bona fide mistake of addressing the application to the PIO of a wrong public authority in case the information is actually held by some other public authority.

(iii) Thus the CPIO of the Commission ahs returned the application to the application for taking up the matter with the concerned PIO which he is aware of."

This has brought Shri D.K. Bhaumik in his second appeal before us with the following prayer:

"(i) An order setting aside the impugned letters being no.

CIC/APIO/2009/17 dated 6.2.2009 and no. CIC/FAA/ 2009/628/Misc. dated 27.3.2009.

(ii) An order directing the respondent CPIO to immediately transfer the complaint's RTI application dated 15.1.2009 to the concerned public authority under intimation to the complainant pursuant to the mandate contained in section 6 (3) of the RTI Act.

(iii) An order for free supply of the information, sought for in paras 5 (a) to 5 (g) of the complainant's RTI application date 15.1.2009.

(iv) An order imposing exemplary penalty on the respondent CPIO u/s 20 of the RTI Act.

(v) An order for compensation to the complainant."

The appeal was heard with arrangement for videoconference on 26-7- 2010. Only Respondent Mr. Tarun Kumar, CPIO is present at CIC Chambers, New Delhi. Although informed of the date of hearing through our letter of 8-7- 2010, and arrangements made with NIC, Kolkata the appellant Shri D.K. Bhaumik has opted not to present.

DECISION NOTICE Appellant Shri D.K. Bhaumik has already been informed of the manner in which he may seek the information that he has requested from Supreme Court of India. It is on this ground that 1st Appellate Authority has not entertained the appeal. Nevertheless, in rejecting the appeal it required to be clarified that the rejection is on the orders of the Appellate Authority. Whereas we have been assured in the hearing that this was indeed so, the letter of 27-3-09 allows for a measure of confusion which is best avoided. However, with this observation the appeal is dismissed.

Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 26-7-2010 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.

(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 26-7-2010 4