Central Information Commission
Apar Gupta vs Deptt Of Information Technology on 11 February, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/DITEC/A/2019/110788/DEOIT
In the matter of:
Apar Gupta
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology(MoEIT),
Department of Electronics and Information Technology,
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi- 110003
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 16/10/2018 CPIO replied on : 19/11/2018 First appeal filed on : 04/12/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 18/12/2018 Second Appeal dated : 07/02/2019 Date of Hearing : 11/02/2021 Date of Decision : 11/02/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Advocate Vrinda Bhandari, representative of the appellant Respondent: Ms Jacqueline Lall, Deputy Director & CPIO Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information pertaining to the public notice dated 14/08/2018 titled "Feedback on Draft Personal Data Protection Bill (DPDP)" and soliciting comments from General Public on the said Bill:
1. Whether any individual, organisation or entity has been engaged at any stage of the feedback process to work on the DPDP Bill with or without any payment, fee or expenses
2. Provide the name and identity of any individual, organisation or entity that has been engaged at any stage of the feedback process to work on the DPDP Bill with or without any payment, fee or expenses.1
3. lf any individual, organisation or entity has been engaged at any stage of the feedback process to work on the DPDP Bill, provide the details of their work and copies of the agreement, contract or office circulars for their engagement or authorization of work.
4. lf any individual, organisation or entity has been engaged at any stage of the feedback process to work on the DPDP Bill, provide the details of any payment, fee or expense. Provide details of the same, including the amount of money paid and details thereof including inspection of bills.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the complete and satisfactory information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The representative of the appellant was not able to make any submissions as she was prepared for some other RTI application. The case was however discussed and the details of this particular RTI application was shared with the representative during the hearing. The case being listed was accordingly taken up for decision based on the submissions on record in the appellant's second appeal memo where he had stated that the CPIO had deliberately and wilfully obstructed the disclosure of the desired information and therefore penalty may be imposed on the concerned CPIO.
The CPIO submitted that since the information was not available, an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 19.11.2018.She also clarified that no such engagement of any party had taken place.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the CPIO in his reply dated 19.11.2018 had clearly stated that no information is available with the Cyber Law and Cyber Security Group of the Ministry. Thereafter, the FAA in his order had stated that the information was sought from the group dealing with Personal Data Protection Bill, however, the reply was nil. From both the letters, it is clear that the information sought by the appellant was not available with the Ministry. During the hearing, the CPIO informed the Commission that no such organisation/ entity or any individual was ever involved or given the task to work on the DPDP Bill with or without any payment fee or expenses. She also submitted that she had taken assistance from the concerned officers and organisations as well to find out if any information as sought by the appellant is available, however, all the concerned offices have stated that no such information is available. Under these circumstances where no organisation/entity nor any individual was ever involved or given the task to work on the DPDP Bill, no information can be 2 provided to the appellant. The Commission therefore is unable to find any flaw in the reply of the CPIO or the FAA order. Hence, there is no question of wilful obstruction of information by the CPIO when there was no information to give.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना 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