Central Information Commission
Rama Nand vs Parliament Of India on 20 March, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/PAROI/A/2022/134752
In the matter of
Rama Nand
... Appellant
VS
The Central Public Information Officer
Rajya Sabha Secretariat (RSS),
Parliament House Annexe,
New Delhi-110001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 04/04/2022 CPIO replied on : 10/05/2022 First appeal filed on : 17/05/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 17/06/2022 Second Appeal Filed on : 21/07/2022 Date of Hearing : 20/03/2023 Date of Decision : 20/03/2023 The following were present: Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Sanjeev Chandra, Director -Present in person Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide copies of all the communications, which took place, between RSS and Directorate of Estates (DE) with respect to Quarter No. 23/206, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, since 23/08/2018. Also provide copies of the noting pertaining to each communication.
2. Provide copies of all the communications, which took place, between RSS and DE, with respect to Quarter No. A-2/4, M.S. Flats, Peshwa Road, Quarter No. B-36, Pandara Road and Quarter No. l7/934, Lodhi Colony, allotted to officials of RSS from GPRA by DE on functional basis. Also provide copies of the noting pertaining to each communication.1
3. Provide details of action taken by RSS on his request dated 19/08/2020 for inter-change of GPRA unit with RSS Accommodation Pool unit. Also provide copy of the noting recorded in this regard.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the CPIO had provided incomplete information to him. He therefore requested the Commission to direct the disclosure of the certified copy of communication dated 29.06.2021 between RSS and DoE. He further stated that he desired to know whether the license fees deducted from his salary was deposited to DoE or not and in this regard, also sought for the certified copy of the file notings.
The CPIO refuted the contentions of the appellant and stated that the copy of communication dated 29.06.2021 was not sought for by the appellant in his main RTI application, hence, not provided. Regarding the license fees, he stated that the same was duly responded to and the schedule of fees was provided to the appellant. It was also mentioned by the CPIO during the hearing that the representation of the appellant on the same subject matter was under examination before the Hon'ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha.
Observations:
Having perused the entire case record and after hearing the submissions of the parties, the Commission noted that the documents related to the communication dated 29.06.2021 between RSS and DoE was de-hors the RTI application of the appellant. The appellant was seeking a reply to fresh/additional queries at the first and second appellate stage which is not permissible as per the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission further noted that the documents pertaining to the license fees were provided to the appellant along with the order of the FAA on 17.06.2022.
The Commission perused the contents of Para 2 of the order dated 17.06.2022 passed by the FAA in this regard. The excerpt of the same is reproduced below:
"The matter was examined in the light of inputs received from the concerned Sections and the appellant is informed that regarding point 2 no. (a) of the appeal, all available information as per official records has already been provided to the appellant in response to his RTI application and further, the communication No. RS.4 (/479/2021- G.A. dated 29'" June, 2021 was not mentioned in his RTI application, hence cannot be replied. As regards the point no. (b), it is informed that the License fee in respect of Shri Rama Nand has been deducted and same has been deposited by Pay and Accounts Office to the Rajya Sabha Pool (Schedule of the month of December 2019 and October 2021 is enclosed (2 pages)."
The aforementioned excerpt which was self-explanatory and sufficiently addressing the queries of the appellant, was read out by the Commission during the hearing for the benefit of the parties. The Commission therefore upholds the findings and decision of the FAA. Therefore, no further intervention was required.
Decision:
With the aforementioned observations, the Commission disposes of the instant second appeal.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3