Central Information Commission
Shri V. Konda Naik vs Ministry Of Social Justice & ... on 1 August, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/MOSJE/A/2022/654989
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/MOSJE/A/2022/649097
Shri V. Konda Naik .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Under Secretary-(RTI/Admin.) Ministry of Social Justice &
Empowerment, Dept. of Social Justice & Empowerment,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Second Appeal No.: CIC/MOSJE/A/2022/654989
RTI application filed on : 27.09.2022
CPIO replied on : 27.09.2022
First appeal filed on : 27.09.2022
First Appellate Authority order : 12.10.2022
Second Appeal received at CIC : 14.10.2022
Date of Hearing : 27.07.2023
Date of Decision : 27.07.2023
Second Appeal No.: CIC/MOSJE/A/2022/649097
RTI application filed on : 14.04.2022
CPIO replied on : 29.04.2022
First appeal filed on : 05.05.2022
First Appellate Authority order : 06.07.2022
Second Appeal received at CIC : 12.09.2022
Date of Hearing : 27.07.2023
Date of Decision : 27.07.2023
Page 1 of 8
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
(1) नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/MOSJE/A/2022/654989
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 27.09.2022, as under:Page 2 of 8
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 27.09.2022.
• The FAA vide order dated 12.10.2022 held as under:
• Written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 24.07.2023 as under :
• Written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 25.07.2023 as under :Page 3 of 8
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
(2) नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/MOSJE/A/2022/649097 Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 29.04.2022, as under:
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 05.05.2022.Page 4 of 8
• The FAA vide order dated 06.07.2022 held as under:
• Written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 18.07.2023, as under :Page 5 of 8
• Written submission has been received from the Respondent vide letter dated 24.07.2023 as under :
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present: -
Appellant: Present Respondent: 1.Mr.Deepak Kumar Sah,US,M/o Social Justice and Empowerment
2. Mr. Rohnish Sharma, M/o Social Justice and Empowerment.
The Appellant stated that he had made a complaint regarding SC/ST(PoA) through NHAA for request to take necessary action against the accused under provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989, but no action has been taken till date. He stated that he has made various representation before the ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment relating to his case but all in vain. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish the information as sought.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the relevant information has been duly furnished to the Appellant within stipulated time frame. He stated that on the request of the Appellant the Page 6 of 8 copy of the complaint registered by application on NHAA was downloaded and forwarded to the SC/ST/BS & Minorities Welfare Department, Telangana vide letter dated 27.06.2022 for taking appropriate action in the matter. He further stated that the PCR (Desk) is concerned with the implementation of the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955, and SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989. He averred that the responsibility in regard to the implementation of PCR and PoA Acts lies primarily with State Government/UT. He further stated that he would abide by the orders of the Commission if any.
Decision:
Since the both the parties are same, the aforementioned Second Appeals are clubbed together for final hearing and disposal.
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent since only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided to the information seekers. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case. The Appellant is advised to approach the concerned state government authorities in this regard.
Matters are disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 7 of 8 Page 8 of 8