Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Lal Mohd vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 16 July, 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 No. CIC/MOEAF/A/2024/118407.

Shri. LAL MOHD.                                                  ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                    VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                         ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of External Affairs.


Date of Hearing                          :   14.07.2025
Date of Decision                         :   14.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner           :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on         :           29.02.2024
PIO replied on                   :           06.03.2024,08.03.2024
First Appeal filed on            :           19.04.2024
First Appellate Order on         :           12.06.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on  :           19.06.2024

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.02.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"(a) How many complaints in this regards recieved from husbands in your office?
(b) How many complaints decided?
(c) How many complaints are under process/pending?
(d) How many FIR's/Cases were registered against Indian wives in Foreign countries and in India?"

The CPIO, vide letter dated 06.03.2024 replied as under:-

"2. There are two IPOs of Rs. 50 (97G 569125) and Rs. 50 (97G 569126) attached with your RTI application. Under the RTI Act, 2005 a citizen of India may seek information after payment of a fee of Rs.10/- through Cash/Indian Postal Order/Demand Draft/E-IPO/Bankers cheque only. Only a BPL card holder applicant is exempted from payment of RTI fee.
3. In view of the above, one IPO of Rs. 50 (97G 569126) is hereby returned to you. Also your RTI application has been transferred/forwarded to the following public Authority :-
RTI wing (CPV Division), Ministry of External Affairs, Room No. 27, Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi, Tel: 23387013, 23384536."

The CPIO, vide letter dated 08.03.2024 replied as under:-

Page 1 This information sought by you is not held at a single point source and covers records scattered over various Passport Issuing Authorities in India and abroad. Collation of information as sought by you would disproportionately divert the resources of this office from the efficient discharge of is normal functions and therefore attracts proviso to the section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.04.2024. The FAA, vide order dated 12.06.2024 stated as under:-
"in the present case, this Ministry is not obliged to compile, collate and maintain the information sought by the RTI Applicant and therefore, I find no reason to issue any further directions to the CPIO."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocate- participated in the hearing.
The Respondent placed on record copy of reply of PIO and order of FAA during course of proceedings.
The Respondent stated that the information sought by the Appellant is neither compiled nor collated in their office. Furthermore, the CPIO is not obliged to compile, collate and maintain the information sought by the RTI Applicant.
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. Furthermore, the RTI Act, 2005 does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to create or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
Page 2 The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)