Central Information Commission
Saurabh Singh vs National Human Rights Commission on 4 April, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal NoCIC/MHOME/A/2023/613684/NHRCM.
Shri. SAURABH SINGH. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
National Human Rights Commission.
Date of Hearing : 02.04.2025
Date of Decision : 02.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.12.2022
PIO replied on : 10.01.2023
First Appeal filed on : 26.02.2023
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 17.03.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.12.2022 and information on following points:
"मेरा नाम सौरभ ससंह पुत्र सुशीलकान्द्त ससंह है मैं भारतीय नागररक हु। मेरे बडे भाई नवशाल ससंह की मृत्यु के संिभग में Fir no-0097 तारीख 18/09/2021 थाना चक्रधरपुर निला पनचचमससंहभूनम चाइबासा प्रिेश झारखंड में Fir ििग करवाया गया था लेदकन 1 साल से भी अनधक समय हो िाने के बाि िब मेरे अनुरोध पर कोई उनचत कारवाई नही हुई तब मैने आपके नवभाग राष्ट्रीय मानवानधकार आयोग में दिनांक 27/09/2022 को राष्ट्रीय मानवानधकार आयोग की वेबसाइट पर ऑनलाइन कम्प्लेन ििग करवाया था dairy no 16246/IN/2022 Case No. 1621/34/18/2022 हैं अब तक मेरे आवेिन पर सन्द्तोषिनक किम नहीं उठाया गया है। कृ पया इसके सन्द्िभग में ननम्ननलनखत सूचना उपलब्ध कराएं।
1. मेरे आवेिन पर की गई प्रनतदिन की कारग वाई अथागत िैननक प्रगनत ररपोटग उपलब्ध करायें। मेरा आवेिन दकन-दकन अनधकाररयों के पास गया तथा दकस अनधकारी के पास दकतने दिनों तक रहा और इस िौरान उन अनधकाररयों ने उसपर क्या कारग वाई की? पूरा नववरण उपलब्ध कराएं।
2. नवभाग के ननयम के अनुसार मेरे आवेिन पर अनधकतम दकतने दिनों में कायगवाही पूरी हो िानी चानहये थी? क्या मेरे मामले में उपरोक्त समय सीमा का पालन दकया गया है?
Page 1
3. कृ पया उन अनधकाररयों के नाम तथा पि बताएं निन्द्हें मेरे आवेिन पर कारग वाई करनी थी? लेदकन उन्द्होंने कोई कारग वाई नहीं की।
4. अपना काम ठीक से न करने और िनता को परे शान करने वाले इन अनधकाररयों के नखलाफ क्या कारग वाई की िाएगी? यह कारग वाई कब तक की िाएगी?
5. अब मेरा काम कब तक पूरा होगा?
6. अगर िांच अनधकार हमारे के स को सही तरीके से िााँच नहीं कर रहा है निससे चािगशीट नही फाइल हो पा रही है, या दफर िॉच अनधकारी िोषी व्यनक्त बचा रहा है तो मेरे िारा उस िॉच अनधकार के नखलाफ क्या करवाई कर सकता हु?
7. अगर िााँच अनधकारी दकसी कागि या एनवडेंस को बिल या समाप्त कर रहा है तो मेरे िारा उस िााँच अनधकार के नखलाफ क्या करवाई कर सकता हु?
8. अगर पुनलस नडपाटगमेंट मेरी नही सुन रहा क्योंदक उसके चटॉप के नखलाफ के स है तो मैं क्या कर सकता हु?
9. मेरे के श की िांच करने वाले अनधकारी का नाम पि और उसका मोबाइल नम्पबर मुझे उपलब्ध कराए"
The CPIO, SO (SB-4) vide letter dated 10.01.2023 replied as under:-
"As per CMIS Complaint Management and Information System records of this Commission your online complaint dated 27.09.2022 was entered vide diary No. 16246/IN/2022 and registered as Case No 1621/34/18/2022 (Copy of computer generated details of case is enclosed) The case was placed before the Commission on 03.10.2022 and the Commission has directed to transmit the complaint to the concerned authority for such action as deemed appropriate. The direction's of the Commission was forwarded on 03.10.2022 to the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. A copy of Commission's letter dated 03.10.2022 communicating the direction of the Commission is again enclosed herewith for your information.
It is also clarified that with the transmission of the complaint, to the concerned authority, the matter stands disposed of at the end of this Commission as the Commission has not called for any report in the matter.
Further, in response the Supdt. of Police, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, Jharkhand had submitted a report vide letter No. 3825/Ap. Sha. dated 24.11.2022 which was entered vide NHRC diary No. 183431/CR/2022 (Copy enclosed).
You are also hereby informed that if subject grievance is still unresolved, complainant/victim may file a fresh complaint either by post or online on hrcnet portal of the Commission stating NHRC previous Case number also As per NHRC (Procedure) 1994 all complaints newly registered shall be placed before the Commission for preliminary consideration as expeditiously as possible but not later than seven days from the date of its receipt."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.02.2023. The FAA vide order dated 13.03.2023 stated as under:
Page 2 Perusal of the records reveals that the PIO has already responded the online RTI application dated 22.12.2022, vide his online letter dated 10.01.2023 i.e., within 30 days of the stipulated period for providing information under the RTI Act. As such, the claim made by the appellant that he has received no information, is not acceptable. However, the PIO is directed to again upload a copy of his letter dated 10.01.2023 along with enclosures to the appellant through online system. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.
In compliance of order of FAA, the PIO vide letter dated 14.03.2023 stated as under:
I am directed to refer to your above mentioned First Appeal and to enclose herewith a copy of order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the First Appellate Authority in the matter.
2. As directed by the FAA, a copy of Commission letter dated 10.01.2023 along with enclosures are enclosed herewith for your information.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 24.03.2025 has been received from the CPIO. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
(i) An online RTI application dated 22.12.2022 along with PDF attachment filed by Shri Saurabh Singh, Village Parasi, Post Office Parasi, District Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, was received in the Scrutiny Branch 4 of Law Division, NHRC (Annexure-l). On perusal of the RTI application, the applicant had sought various information about action taken on his complaint dated 27.09.2022, registered as Case No. 1621/34/18/2022 in the Commission.
(ii) The PIO, Scrutiny Branch-4 of the Law Division, NHRC, vide reply dated 10.01.2023 along with enclosure had provided the available information(s)/status(s) to the applicant under RTI Act, 2005 (Annexure-II).
(iii) The appellant preferred First Appeal dated 26.02.2023 before the First Appellant Authority against the reply of the PIO dated 10.01.2023 on the ground that the PIO has not provided the requisite information and action against the PIO under the RTI Act. (Annexure-III).
(iv) The First Appellant Authority disposed of the First Appeal, vide Order dated 13.03.2023 (Annexure-IV) observing as that the PIO has already responded the online to the applicant dated 22.12.2022, vide his online letter dated 10.01.2023 i.e., within 30 days of the stipulated period for providing information under the RTI Act. As such, the claim made by the appellant that he has received no information, is not acceptable. However, the PIO is directed to again upload a copy of his letter dated 10.01.2023 along with enclosures to the appellant through online system.
With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 3
(v) As directed by the First Appellant Authority, a letter dated 14.03.2023 along with copy of PIO's reply dated 10.01.2023 with enclosures and FAA Order dated 13.03.2023 was again sent to the appellant through Email and Speed Post (Annexure-V & VI).
2. From the submission made herein above, it is amply clear that PIO has discharged his statutory duties imposed under the provisions of the RTI Act, diligently furnishing information well within the stipulated time frame.
3. In view of the above, it is humbly submitted that instant appeal preferred by the Appellant before Hon'ble CIC is devoid of merit as the both PIO and First Appellate Authority have duly discharge the onus of giving information as requested for on the basis of documents on record and within the purview of RTI Act, 2005.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not Present Respondent: Mr. L.M. Pathak, PIO/Assistant Registrar (Law), NHRC and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, section Officer, NHRC- participated in the hearing.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Appellant. They further stated that the Appellant had sought information regarding action taken on his complaint dated 27.09.2022, registered as Case No. 1621/34/18/2022 in the Commission. They averred that the complaint was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand and action taken report received from the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand was also provided to the Appellant. They further stated that a copy of their written submission along with all the annexures has been duly furnished to the Appellant.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Commission notes that 'information' as defined in the section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material as is already available in the records of the public authority. It is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Page 4 Appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंिीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)