Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Yashpal Malik vs Cabinet Secretariat on 19 January, 2019

                                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/DLSEC/A/2017/158099/CABST


Yashpal Malik                                               ... अपीलकताग/Appellant


                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम


CPIO: Parliament of India,                               ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI :08.06.2017            FA      :10.07.2017           SA    :23.08.2017

CPIO :No Reply             FAO :No Order                 Hearing:07.01.2019


                                    ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Parliament of India, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Parliament House, New Delhi seeking information on 15 points, pertaining to Shri Ramdas Athawale, Member of Parliament and Shri Rajkumar Saini, including, inter-alia (i) copy of nomination form along with all other documents submitted by Shri Ramdas Athawale and Shri Rajkumar Saini at Page 1 of 5 the time of election, and (ii) details of aid given to the family of martyrs by Shri Ramdas Athawale and Shri Rajkumar Saini.

2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that the CPIO and FAA has not provided the information. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri K. Sona, CAPIO, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi was present in person.

4. The respondent submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.

5. The respondent submitted that the appellant's RTI application dated 08.06.2017 as well as the first appeal dated 10.07.2017 was not received in the Lok Sabha Secretariat. Hence, no reply could be provided to the appellant. The respondent further stated that on receipt of hearing notice dated 11.12.2018 from the Commission, a copy of the RTI application was obtained. The respondent also stated that information sought vide point nos. 1 to 10 and 13 to 14 of the RTI application pertains to different public authorities. The information sought on point nos. 11, 12 and 15 is voluminous in nature, scattered over a number of files and is not readily available with the CPIO in the manner as sought by the appellant. He added that, if the appellant wants, he can inspect the relevant records on any given date.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, notes that as per the respondent no reply to the appellant's RTI application could be provided as the same was not received by the Lok Sabha.

The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to file an affidavit with the Commission deposing that no RTI application was received by them. Hence, no information could be provided to the appellant. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant. The Commission further directs the respondent to transfer the RTI application of the appellant on point nos. 1 to 10 and 13 to 14 to the public authority(ies) concerned. The Commission also notes that the information sought for vide point nos. 11, 12 and 15 may not be collated in a few files, rather could be scattered over a large number of files, which could require collating and compiling the information sought for. However, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of The Registrar Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra & Ors LPA 24/2015 & CM No. 965/2015 has held:-

"15. On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, 'right to information' under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which is sought by the applicant".

In view of the above, the respondent cannot be asked to collate information in the manner in which it is sought by the appellant. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to allow the appellant to inspect all relevant records pertaining to the information sought vide point nos. 11, 12 and 15 of the RTI application on a mutually decided date and time and to obtain photocopies of the requisite documents, free of charge upto 25 pages. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date: 14.01.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Parliament of India, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Parliament House, New Delhi-110001

2. Shri Yashpal Malik, Page 5 of 5