Central Information Commission
Raghvendra Pratap Singh vs Indira Gandhi National Centre For The ... on 3 September, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
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/IGNCA/A/2020/662715-UM
Mr. RAGHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts
Janpath, New Delhi - 110001
प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.09.2021
Date of Decision : 03.09.2021
Date of RTI application 19.10.2019
CPIO's response 05.11.2019
Date of the First Appeal 02.12.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 21.01.2020
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information, as under:-
"I would like to focus your attention on IGNCAs documentation of RAMLEELA in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India which was telecasted on the Doordarshan National Channel."
The CPIO vide letter dated 05.11.2019, furnished a reply to the Appellant, as under:-
"DVDs of Ramnagar Ramlila are not available for dissemination. However, students and subject scholars may preview and make notes of documentation as Media Centre, IGNCA, New Delhi, with prior approval of Controller (Media Centre)."Page 1 of 2
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 21.01.2020, upheld the reply of the CPIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide the information. HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh present through AC, Respondent: Mr. Sunial Goyal, Under Secretary, present though AC, The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Applications stated that he had sought information regarding copy in disc format of the IGNCAs documentation of RAMLEELA of RAMNAGAR in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India which was telecasted on the Doordarshan National Channel from 27th September to 27th October 2015 in 31 episodes etc. The Appellant stated that no correct reply was furnished by the Respondent and moreover the documentation of RAMLEELA had already been telecasted on television so it is not a private documents. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 05.11.2019 they had furnished a reply to the Appellant. The Respondent further submitted that they have an a memorandum of understanding with Kashinaresh who holds the copyright of the information sought and therefore they are barred to disclose the information under section 9 of the RTI Act 2005.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. No further intervention by the Commission is required in the matter The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानित एवं सत्यानपत प्रनत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 दिनांक / Date: 03.09.2021 Page 2 of 2