Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mr.Paras Nath Singh vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 31 January, 2012

                 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                     Club Building (Near Post Office)
                   Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                          Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                              Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003526/17195
                                                      Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003526

Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal

Appellant                              :      Mr. Paras Nath Singh
                                              H. No. S/13 Banna Devi G.T. Road Aligarh-
                                              202001 U.P.

Respondent                             :     Mr. Manish Chauhan,

(CPIO) Director (RTI), Ministry of External Affairs, #2025, 'A' Wing, J.N. Bhawan, New Delhi-110011 RTI application filed on : 19/07/2011 PIO replied : 07/09/2011 11/11/2011 First appeal filed on : 24/09/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 08/11/2011 Second Appeal received on : 08 /12/2011 Information Sought:

1. Provide with the certified copy of my RTI application dated 24.12.2010.

2. Provide with the certified copy of my First appeals dated 10.02.2011 and 15.04.2011. Also provide me the date on which these appeals were received.

3. Separately the daily progress made in case of above referred RTI application and First appeals till date i.e. when did it reach which officer/functionary, how long did it stay with that officer/functionary and what did that officer /functionary do during that period on the said letter together with file noting and name and designation of each officer/functionary.

4. Whether the said appeals placed before the First Appellate Authority. If yes kindly provide me the note made by FAA on the appeals.

5. Facts and reasons for not to dispose of these appeals under section 19(6) of RTI act.

6. Certified copy of complete file noting made on my said RTI application till date.

7. Is there any correspondence made between RTI section of MEA and Embassy of India in USA and Moscow (Russia) on my said RTI. If yes kindly provide me the certified copy of alt correspondence and concurrence received.

Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):

Reply 1(7/09/2011) Point 1:

Your RTI application dated 24h December, 2010 transferred by Prime Minister's Office (PMO) vide their O.M. no. RTI/3949/2010-PMR dated 28th December, 2010 was received on 3" January, 2011. The certified copy of your RTI application dated 24.12.200 is enclosed.

Point 2:

(i) Your first RTI appeal which was received on 17.02.2011 was unsigned and undated. However, your signed first appeal was received on 22 February, 2011, which was transferred by Ministry of Communication & IT, Aligarh Division vide their letter PG/RTI/Forwd/20l0 dated 15th February, 2011. The certified copy of your RTI appeal dated 10.02.2011 is enclosed.

(ii) Second Appeal dated 15.04.2011 was received in RTI Division of the Ministry on 19.04.2011.

Point 3:

Your application was forwarded to the concerned Division on 17.01.2011 and inputs were, received on lst April, 2011. Reply was forwarded to you with reference to point 1 of your RTI application vide our letter of even no. dated 4ih April, 2011. There was no file noting on your RTI application. The names of the officers cannot be revealed as under Section 8(l) (e) (information available to a person in fiduciary relationship) of the RTI Act, 2005 as well as Section 8(l) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 (there is no obligation to give information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual). Point 4 & 5:

Photocopy of the appeal showing comments of the first Appellate Authority of the Ministry is enclosed at. Your appeal is under process and you have been informed vide our letter of even no dated 12th July, 2011 addressed to Shri G. Subramanian, Deputy Registrar in CIC and copy of this letter was endorsed to you. The same is enclosed once again your information.

Point 6:

There is no noting on movement of your RTI. application. Point 7:

There is no correspondence made between RTI Division & Embassy of India in USA or Embassy of India in Moscow relating to your RT1 application.

Reply 2(11/07/2011)

(i) Your unsigned appeal dated 101h February 2011 with reference to your RTI application dated 24th December 2010 is at Annexure - A.

(ii) Names of the officers dealing with your RTI application dated 24th December 2010 is at Annexure -B.

(iii) Photocopy of your first appeal dated 10th February 2011 witl4 reference to your RTI application dated 24th December 2010 and comments thereon of the First Appellate Authority is at Annexure-C.

(iv) Copy of correspondence between ERS Division and our Missions in Moscow is at Annexure -- D. There is no correspondence between the America Division and out Mission in USA, as per our records.

Grounds for the First Appeal:

Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):

"1. I refer to the first RTI appeal by the appellant dated 24th September, 2011, regarding his RTI application of 19th July, 2011, seeking information regarding action on his earlier RTI application dated 24th December, 2010.

2. I have directed the CPIO to respond to the appellant with the desired remaining information relevant to his appeal within 15 days."

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

Action under Section 20(1) of the RTI with the directives to provide correct and complete information and payment of compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of RTI.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Paras Nath Singh, via video conference from NIC Studio-Aligarh; Respondent: Mr. Manish Chauhan, PIO & Director (RTI) and Mr. P. Roychaudhuri, Advocate.

The Appellant has been given all the information as available on records. The Appellant is claiming that he has not received the complete information but the Commission does not see any merit in his contentions.

Decision:

The Appeal is disposed of. The information as available on record has been provided to the Appellant.

This decision is announced in open chamber.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 31 January 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(PG) Page 3 of 3