Central Information Commission
Omprakash Kashiram vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 25 October, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2019/105230
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/120953
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/126184
CIC/MHOME/A/2019/159782
Shri Omprakash Kashiram ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri V S Rana - Director/CPIO and
Shri R K Sharma - CPIO/OSD
Shri Suraj Singh - Commandant/CPIO
Date of Hearing : 25.10.2021
Date of Decision : 25.10.2021
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
105230 06.11.2018 13.12.2018 28.11.2018 14.01.2019 05.02.2019
120953 01.02.2019 08.03.2019 23.03.2019 - 07.05.2019
126184 27.02.2019 - 11.04.2019 - 31.05.2019
159782 16.08.2019 13.09.2019 19.09.2019 27.09.2019 11.12.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/105230 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.11.2018 seeking information on the 09 points, including the following:-Page 1 of 8
Etc. The CPIO/Dy. Secretary vide letter dated 13.12.2018 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.11.2018. The FAA/Jt. Secretary (IS-I) vide order dated 14.01.2019 stated that the action taken by the CPIO, MHA in the matter is as per the provisions contained in RTI Act, 2005.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Submissions dated 13.10.2021 have been received from the IS-I Division/Ayodhya Section, MHA, reiterating the above facts. It has also been pointed out by the Respondent that the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has Page 2 of 8 been pronounced in the matter and detailed information about the case is already available in public domain.
(2) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/120953 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.02.2019 before the PIO, O/o the President of India seeking information on following 04 points:-
The CPIO/Dy. Secretary vide letter dated 08.03.2019 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.03.2019 and the same remained undecided.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 3 of 8
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Submissions dated 13.10.2021 have been received from the IS-I Division/Ayodhya Section, MHA, reiterating the PIO's reply dated 08.03.2019 and stating that the First Appeal was decided vide order dated 03.04.2019, upholding the PIO's reply.
Submissions dated 14.10.2021 have also been received from the President's Secretariat about having transferred the RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the MHA on 14.02.2019. The First Appeal was also duly disposed off vide order dated 23.05.2019 by the FAA, President's Secretariat.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone is present for the hearing, while the Appellant sought exemption from attending the hearing held through video conference.
Decision Considering the absence of the Appellant, the aforementioned cases which deal with similar queries, are being decided by a common order, on the basis of records of the case. The Appellant has raised queries with respect to myriad aspects of the Ram Janmabhoomi - Ayodhya Dispute case which was pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. With the pronouncement of the final judgement in the Ayodhya dispute case declared by the Supreme Court of India on 9 November 2019, in the [Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010] titled as M Siddiq (D) Thr LRs Mahant vs. Suresh Das & Ors. , not only has issue been decided but the 1045 page decision encompasses all relevant details pertaining to the case. The decision is in public domain and as such accessible to all.
In view of the above position, the aforementioned appeals, dealing with questions which are now well settled by the decision of the Apex Court, have been rendered infructuous.
(3) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/126184 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.02.2019 seeking information on the following 03 points:-Page 4 of 8
Having not received any response from the, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.04.2019 and the same was also not adjudicated.
Aggrieved over non receipt of the information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone is present for the virtual hearing, while the Appellant sought exemption from attending the hearing held through video conference.
During the course of hearing, the Respondent contended that the RTI application had been duly responded vide reply dated 06.06.2019 informing the Appellant that the information may be available with the BM-I Division and the CTCR Division and the First Appeal had also been decided by the FAA/Joint Secretary-BM-II Division. Copies of the PIO's reply and the FAA's order have been submitted by the Respondent alongwith the submission dated 13.10.2021, which have been duly taken on record.
Decision In the light of the facts which transpired during the course of hearing, it is noted that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, had been provided by the Respondent, on the basis of existing records, despite the non specific nature of queries. The Commission is satisfied with the response and finds that no cause of action exists in this case, which requires further intervention.Page 5 of 8
(4) CIC/MHOME/A/2019/159782 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.08.2019 which was responded by the CPIO/Director (J&K) vide letter dated 13.09.2019 as under:-Page 6 of 8
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO CPIO,, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.09.2019.
.2019. The FAA/Addl. Secretary (J&K) vide order dated 27.09.2019 held as under:--
Not satisfied with the reply reply, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIOCPIO,, Department of Jammu, J Kashmir and Ladakh Affairs vide letter dated 18.10.2021, reiterating the above mentioned responses and adding further the following:Page 7 of 8
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, 19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone is present for the virtual hearing, while the Appellant sought ught exemption from attending the hearing held through video conference. The Respondent reiterated the contents of the replies and submissions as discussed hereinabove.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case, the Commission finds no infirmity with the response esponse furnished by the Respondent and accordingly, is of the considered opinion that no interference is required in the case at hand.
The appeals are disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 8 of 8