Central Information Commission
Shantanu Rai vs Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare on 14 July, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MH&FW/A/2021/623651
Shri Shantanu Rai ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Dr. Yogesh - CMO(Disaster
Management Cell)
Date of Hearing : 12.07.2021
Date of Decision : 14.07.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05.04.2021
PIO replied on : 28.05.2021
First Appeal filed on : 28.05.2021
First Appellate Order on : 03.06.2021
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.04.2021 seeking information on the following points:-
Strict lockdown was announced on 23.03.2020 to safeguard against the fear of COVID spread. Since there was a strict lockdown we can assume there would have been negligible human movement of non essential nature during the lockdown period. However, unfortunately we still observed a steady rise in corona cases throughout the country during the 1stlockdown period. What could be the main reasons to which the COVID spread can be attributed to during the 1ststrict lockdown even though there was no/negligible human movement of non essential nature during this lockdown period?
The PIO/CMO(EMR), MoHFW vide letter dated 28.05.2021 replied as under:-Page 1 of 3
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.05.2021. The FAA/Director (PH) vide order dated 03.06.2021 cautioned the CPIO over delay in supply of information to the Appellant and upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
An unsigned, undated written submission has been found attached with the e- file, reiterating the sequence of facts, noted above.
It is also noted that another RTI application and its reply has also been attached in the e-file, which is not relevant to the case at hand. The Appellant has sent email communications dated 08.07.2021 and 09.07.2021, denying receipt of hearing notice about the audio conference, though the postal tracking status reveals that the hearing notice dated 21.06.2021 was dispatched on 23.06.2021 and had been delivered at the Appellant's address on 25.06.2021.
The Appellant pointed out that it is not possible for the information seeker to know which Unit or Division of the Ministry is the actual custodian of information, but the Respondent should have transferred the RTI application to the actual custodian of information. He further stated that the PIO's reply was also received only after multiple reminders were sent seeking the information. In addition to this, it was also pointed out by the Appellant that the First Appeal was decided on the basis of records without even giving him an opportunity to put forward his contentions and no hearing was held.
On being questioned by the Commission to give an explanation for not transferring the RTI Application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the appropriate custodian of information, the Respondent stated that he was not aware of any agency which would have the desired information in their custody. Hence, the application had not been transferred.
Decision:
On examination of the records of the case and the averments of the parties concerned, it is noted that information sought by the Appellant is hypothetical in nature and seeks opinion of the public authority about what could be reasons for the spread of the pandemic. Such a query is based on surmises and certainly cannot be answered within the precincts of the RTI Act which deals with information as it exists on record. Thus the query per se cannot be classified as 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. Information about possibilities, suppositions or probable reasons cannot be addressed under this Act.
Notwithstanding, the above position, it cannot be overlooked that the principle of audi alteram partem has regrettably been ignored by the First Appellate Authority, who has passed the order upon hearing only the Respondent, while Page 2 of 3 no opportunity was granted to the Appellant to place his contentions. Such an order by the FAA therefore is legally untenable. Hence, the Respondent - FAA is cautioned to be vigilant in future while adjudicating First Appeals.
In the light of the discussion in the preceding paragraph, no further direction is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed off as such.
Y. K. Sinha (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 3 of 3