Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rajnandan Sahni vs Ministry Of Law & Justice on 22 December, 2021

Author: Saroj Punhani

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                                के ीय सूचना आयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                             बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067


File No : CIC/MOLAJ/A/2019/156831

Rajnandan Sahni                                      ......अपीलकता/Appellant


                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम


CPIO,
Ministry of Law & Justice,
RTI Cell, Room No. 439 A,
4th Floor, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110001.                                  .... ितवादीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                     :   22/12/2021
Date of Decision                    :   22/12/2021

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :              Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :   25/02/2019
CPIO replied on                     :   24/04/2019
First appeal filed on               :   01/04/2019
First Appellate Authority's order   :   Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :   21/11/2019




                                           1
 Information sought

:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.02.2019 seeking the following information:
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.04.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 24.04.2019 stating as follows:-
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, theappellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: P C Meena, DS & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated that the requested appointment has not been yet made by the Bihar State Government.
2
The CPIO submitted that since no role of their office is warranted in the appointment of the Public Prosecutor in the Excise Department of Govt. of Bihar, no action was taken on the application of the Appellant referred to in the RTI Application and the same has been already informed to him.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observed that an appropriate reply has been already provided to the Appellant leaving no scope of intervention in the matter under the RTI Act.
Moreover, the administrative issues/inaction related to appointment of a public prosecutor is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act.
The Appellant is advised to pursue the grievance with the competent authority before the appropriate forum.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 3