Central Information Commission
Ex - Nb/Sub. Gurbachan Singh (Jc-32487) vs Lt. Gen M. G. Girish,Dg on 23 March, 2006
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal was filed by Ex Nb Sub Gurbachan Singh against the order of the first Appellate authority viz. Lt. Gen. M.G. Girish, Director General, DC&W Army HQs, New Delhi given on 16.1.2006.
2. Notices were issued both to the Appellant and the officer viz. Lt. Gen. M.G. Girish, who heard the first appeal on 16.1.06. Reply was received from Lt. Gen. M.G. Girish through his communication No. A/810027/RTI/03/M/P1, dated the 7th March, 06.
3. Hearing for the second appeal was held on 10.3.2006 at 11.00 A.M. in the Conference Room of the Central Information Commission. The appellant was called. Was absent. Lt. Gen. Girish was represented by Brig. S.C. Nair and Col. N.K. Kohli.
4. In the absence of the appellant, submissions of Brig. S.C. Nair and Col. N.K. Kohli, were heard.
5. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
i) Ex Nb Sub Gurbachan Singh, the appellant in this case, was subjected to a Court martial proceedings in the year 1971. Appellant has asked for a copy of the order in respect the appointment Maj. Vinay Khanna, Signals (IC 10144) was holding when posted/transferred to 5(1) Support Signal Company Pune, between 8-25 February, 1971. The PIO Maj. Gen. A.B. Sayyad, ADGPI, rejected the request for information under Section 8(3) of the RTI Act as the information sought by the petitioner pertained to records/occurance which were more than 20 years old. The appellant's first appeal was rejected on the ground that as per provision of the Army Rule 146, the records of the court martial trial were destroyed after a retention period of 10 years. As such, there were no details available in regard to that court martial at this distance of time. The second ground was that the information sought by Ex Nb Sub Gurbachan Singh served no public interest and hence need not be supplied to him. Thirdly, it was further pointed out in the order on the first appeal that the information sought by the appellant in regard to Maj. Vinay Khanna was in the nature of personal information, disclosure of which have had no relation to any public activity and hence could not to be disclosed as per provisions contained in Section 8 of the Right to Information Act.
6. We have carefully examined the matter and heard the submission on behalf of Lt. Gen. M.G. Girish. It is quite clear that all records in the present case stand destroyed after a specified period of retention under Army Rules - 146. Since the information did not even exist, it was physically impossible to provide it to the Appellant. There is no liability under RTI Act of a public authority to supply non-existent information.
7. The PIO was not right in rejecting the request for an information on ground that it was over 20 years old. The stipulation in Section 8(3) "...any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under Section 6 shall be provided to any person ..". does not imply that information older than 20 years need not be disclosed by a public authority. In fact the contrary is true. It is a provision that favours the information seeker. In the present case, however, this is a moot point in so far as the information has been authorisedly destroyed after following the appropriate rules. Such information need not be supplied because it cannot be.
8. In as much as the information cannot be supplied on account of the destruction of the records, we do not consider it necessary to go into the other two grounds of rejection of the first appeal.
9. The appeal is rejected.