Central Information Commission
Shri S.C. Agrawal vs Prime Minister'S Office, (Pmo) on 1 October, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01289 & 01419 dated 6-8-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri S.C. Agrawal
Respondent: Prime Minister's Office, (PMO)
FACTS
These are two appeals concerning the Prime Minister's Office.
File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01419 In his request of 16-6-08 Shri S.C. Agrawal of Dariba, Delhi applied to CPIO, PMO with the following questions regarding Prime Minister's attendance at function for release of a postage stamp on the eighth death anniversary of the late Shri Rajesh Pilot:
1. "Was Honourable Prime Minister aware that he was attending a function where government rules were being flouted by issue of a postage stamp in violation of stipulated rules.
2. Steps taken by Honourable Prime Minister to direct Department of Posts for sticking to the rules framed in regard of issue of commemorative postage stamps as published in 'Handbook of Philately' published by Department of posts (India).
3. Steps taken by Prime Minister's Office to other departments/ ministries/ undertakings of government to ensure strict following of rules concerning their respective offices."
To this he received a response dated 23-6-08 from Shri Amit Agrawal, Director, PMO & CPIO stating as follows:
"No information regarding the queries posed by you in your application is available with this office."
Appellant then moved his first appeal before Ms. Vini Mahajan, Appellate Authority on 30-6-08 pleading as below:
"PMO should be able to inform about steps taken by it on violation of rules by government departments/ ministries if such cases are brought to PMO's notice. I appeal, if necessary, my RTI petition may kindly be placed before the Honourable Prime Minister for providing me necessary information."1
Ms. Vini Mahajan on the other hand in her response of 31-7-08 found as follows:
"After due consideration of the matter in terms of the relevant provisions of the Act, I am of the view that the action taken by the CPIO of the Prime Minister's Office as above is in accordance with the prescribed statutory provisions and he has appropriately dealt with your application."
Appellant's prayer before us in his second appeal is a reiteration of his application pleading that PMO be directed to respond to my queries. if necessary, after placing these before the Hon'ble Prime Minister. In response to our appeal notice we have received a fax dated 30-9-08 in which after discussing the process followed Shri Amit Agrawal, Director and CPIO has submitted as follows:-
"(i) The application has been responded to with reference to records and he has already been informed that no information on the subject is held by this office.
(ii) As regards his request for placing his queries before the Prime Minister, it is submitted that 'information' as defined in section 2(f) read with section 2(j) of the Act means any material in existence and it cannot mean and include something that is not inexistence and has to be created.
The Act does not envisage preparing a report after an inquiry. In the instant case submitting his queries to the Prime Minister and responding to the queries thereafter, amounts to preparing a report, and is not covered under the legal provisions.
(iii) His request for file notings on movement of his petition is a fresh request, which was not made in the original request. Therefore, the same cannot be considered at this stage."
File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01289 In this case appellant applied to CPIO, PMO Shri Amit Agrawal seeking the following information:-
"Directorate of Estates (Union Ministry of Urban Development) informed that Bungalow Number 8 at Krishna Menon Marg (New Delhi) presently allotted to former Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee as official residence, was re-numbered as 6A because of some communication received from Prime Minister's Office.
Kindly arrange information about rules allowing such re numbering. Please provide copy of complete file and documents relating to the said re-numbering from 8 to 6A. Is 2 government prepared to re-number the bungalow at number 8 (As originally) if no rules are traced to authenticate numbering the bungalow as 6A at present?
Please also inform if aspects like astrology, numerology or vastu etc are considered at official level too in government functioning.
Kindly attach file notings. If the query relates to some other public authority, kindly transfer the petition to CPIO there."
By his letter of 13.3.2008 Shri Amit Agrawal transfer this request to Ministry of Urban Development, u/s 6 (3). By his letter of 11.4.2008 Shri M. Martin, Dy. Director of Estates, MOUD in referring to this letter inform the appellant that the requisite information which was in the custody of Directorate of Estates has already been furnished to him vide this Directorate's letter of even number dated 25.02.2008 and 19.03.2008.
Appellant Shri Agrawal has then moved his first appeal before the Director Dr. D. Suresh, Directorate of Estates and Appellate Authority pleading as below;-
"I appeal if the CPIO at Union Ministry of Urban Development is unable to provide information on my additional queries in above paragraph, then he may kindly be directed to refer back my RTI petition back to PMO for the reply from there."
Accordingly Shri R. S. Bhogat, Dy. Director of Estates has transferred the matter back to CPIO, PMO. In his letter of 4.6.2008 this was duly considered as a transfer of appeal by Ms. Vini Mahajan, Jt. Secretary, PMO on 5.7.2008 who remanded the matter to CPIO, PMO to examine whether there is any additional matter in question which could be provided to appellant Shri Agrawal. However, Shri Amit Agrawal in his letter of 11.7.2008 found as follows:-
"The office has advised that there is no new or additional information with the office to supplement the information already provided.
In the aforementioned order of the appellate authority, direction has also been made to allow you to peruse the relevant file and documents and obtain copies under the rules. Accordingly, it is advised that you may inspect the relevant file and documents at 3.00 p.m. on 15.07.2008 in the Public Wing, Prime Minister's Office at Rail Bhawan, New Delhi."3
Appellant Shri Agrawal has then moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:-
"Under mentioned points mentioned in my RTI petition dated 10.03.2008 should be cleared:
1. Rules under which bungalow number 8 at Krishna Menon Marg (New Delhi) was re numbered as 6A.
2. If no rules are there for re numbering, will bungalow no. 6A be re-numbered as 8 Krishna Menon Marg?
3. Are aspects like astrology, numerology or vastu are considered at official level in government functioning?
4. Copy of complete file offered for inspection by PMO on 15.07.2008 may be provided with file notings.
File notings on movement of my RTI petition may kindly be directed to be provided. Any other relief deemed fit may kindly be allowed in favour of petitioner. It is prayed accordingly."
In response to our appeal notice we have received a response from appellate authority dated 30.9.2008 in which after examining the case CPIO Shri Amit Agrawal submitted as follows: -
"2.1 Subject matter of the original RTI request being closely connected with the functions of the Ministry of Urban Development, the request was transferred to that public authority, vide this office's OM dated 13.03.2008 under the relevant legal provisions.
2.2 the aforementioned action of the CPIO was adjudicated by the appellate authority in this office on an appeal filed before her. Subsequently, another appeal was rece4ived on transfer from the Ministry of Urban Development, in which the appellant had sought additional information. The appellate authority in the appeal, vide order dated 5.7.2008 remanded the matter to the undersigned to examine whether there is any additional information on the matter in question, which could be provided to the applicant and to also allow the applicant to peruse relevant file and documents and obtain copies under the rules.
2.3 In pursuance of the direction of the appellate authority, the officer dealing with the subject were requested to check if there is any additional information which could be provided to the complainant. In response, the 4 undersigned was apprised that there is no new or additional information to supplement the information already provided. Accordingly, the complainant was informed and was also offered opportunity to inspect the relevant file. Therefore, his averment that the undersigned has avoided direct reply to his queries, is groundless. As regards the delivery of the letter issued upon remand, this was not brought to the notice of the undersigned prior to the compliant. The complainant may even now inspect the file. The request for copy of the file can also be granted upon payment of requisite fee in prescribed manner. The request in paragraph 1.1 is afresh one and may be considered in case the complainant moves a separate application with requisite fee."
The appeal was heard on 1-10-2008. The following are present.
Appellants Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal Respondents Shri Amit Agrawal, Director & CPIO, PMO.
Shri Kshitish Kumar, Section Officer.
DECISION NOTICE CIC/WB/A/2008/01419: In this case PMO has clearly informed the appellant Shri Agrawal that they have no record in this matter. Shri Agrawal may draw what conclusion he wishes from this information, but he cannot now under the RTI Act ask hat the matter be placed before the PM and thereby seek to dictate further action to be taken by the public authority. This Act has no such authority. Appellant Shri Agrawal may submit his suggestions to the public authority in the normal course. The information sought on this application not being held by the PMO cannot be provided to appellant Shri Agrawal by that office. This appeal is therefore, dismissed.
CIC/WB/A/2008/01289: In this case appellant Shri Agrawal has submitted that he has not received a copy of the decision of CPIO Shri Amit Agrawal before the due date for inspection in response to the direction of 1st Appellate Authority, which was sent on 11.7.2008. He would, therefore, be satisfied so far as the PMO is concerned with a copy of the file as offered by appellate 5 authority in response to our appeal notice. However, he also submitted copies of the letter of Shri Ashok Saikia, Addl. Secretary, PMO to Addl. Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development on 19.5.2008 seeking immediate change of numbering of Bungalow-8, Krishna Menon Marg. It was acted upon on the very same day and finalised on the very next day. This copy has been placed on record. However, appellant Shri Agrawal has not received a copy of the Rules if any authorising such change of number as asked for, either from the PMO or from MoUD. The PMO clearly does not carry such rules. This could be available in the administrative Ministry of the Directorate of Estates, which is the Ministry of Urban Development. Shri M. Martin, Dy. Director of Estates (A-1) who has responded to the application of Shri Amit Agrawal on 11.4.2008, will now provide him a copy of such rules if any, or if there are none, inform Shri Agrawal of the established procedure in change of such numbers. This may be done within 10 working days of the date of receipt of this decision notice. This appeal is, therefore allowed in part.
Announced in open hearing in both appeals. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 1-10-2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 1-10-2008 6