Central Information Commission
Shiv Narayan Srivastava vs Central Adoption Resource Agency on 3 March, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CARAG/A/2023/143752
Shiv Narayan Srivastava .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Adoption Resource Agency,
West Block-8, Wing-II,
2nd Floor, R.K Puram, New Delhi - 110066 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.02.2025
Date of Decision : 27.02.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.12.2022
CPIO replied on : 15.03.2023
First appeal filed on : 22.08.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.10.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 28.12.2022 with the CPIO, Ministry of Woman & Child Development seeking the following information:
"उपर्यक् ु त विषर् के संदर्ु में विनम्रतापूिक ु ननिेदन करना है सूचना का अधिकार अधिननर्म, 2005 के क्रम में ननर्ुत राजाज्ञा संख्र्ा-993/43-2-2005 ददनांक-19 अक्टूबर, 2005 (संलग्नक संख्र्ा-1) का अिलोकन करने की कृपा करें , जजसके प्रस्तर-4 (1) अधिननर्म की िारा-6 की उपिारा-1 के अन्तर्ुत र्रीबी रे खा से नीचे (B.P.L.) Page 1 of 4 पररिार के व्र्जक्त द्िारा चाही र्र्ी सूचनाओं की सयस्पष्ट प्रमाणित छार्ाप्रनतर्ों ननिःशयल्क उपलब्ि कराने की सयवििा प्रदान की र्र्ी है ।
मैं र्रीब रे खा से नीचे (B.P.L.) पररिार के राशन कार्ु का सदस्र् हूूँ (संलग्नक संख्र्ा-2)। उपरोक्त संदर्र्ुत राजाज्ञा ददनांक 19 अक्टूबर, 2005 के अन्तर्ुत ननमनांककत सूचनाओं की सयस्पष्ट प्रमाणित छार्ाप्रनतर्ों उपलब्ि कराने की कृपा करें :-
1. ककतनी उम्र के बच्चों को "दत्तक पयत्र" र्ोद लेने का प्रावििान है , उससे समबजन्ित राजाज्ञा/ननर्मािली की सयस्पष्ट प्रमाणित छार्ाप्रनत उपलब्ि कराने की कृपा की जार्े।
2. दत्तक पयत्र के हाईस्कूल परीक्षा उत्तीिु करने पर हाईस्कूल अंक पत्र ि हाईस्कूल प्रमाि पत्र में जन्म दे ने िाले वपता का नाम दजु ककर्े जाने का प्रावििान है अथिा दत्तक वपता का नाम दजु ककर्े जाने का प्रावििान है , उससे समबजन्ित राजाज्ञा / ननर्मािली की सयस्पष्ट प्रमाणित छार्ाप्रनत उपलब्ि कराने की कृपा की जार्े।
3. दत्तक पयत्र के मत ृ क हो जाने पर ननर्ुत ककर्ा जाने िाला मृत्र्य प्रमाि पत्र में जन्म दे ने िाले वपता का नाम दजु ककर्े जाने का प्रावििान है अथिा दत्तक वपता का नाम दजु ककर्े जाने का प्रावििान है , उससे समबजन्ित राजाज्ञा / ननर्मािली की सयस्पष्ट प्रमाणित छार्ाप्रनत उपलब्ि कराने की कृपा की जार्े।
4. अपंजीकृत र्ोदनामा के आिार पर "दत्तक पयत्र" िैि होता है अथिा पंजीकृत र्ोदनामा के आिार पर "दत्तक पयत्र" िैि होता है , उससे समबजन्ित राजाज्ञा / ननर्मािली की सयस्पष्ट प्रमाणित छार्ाप्रनत उपलब्ि कराने की कृपा की जार्े।"
The CPIO, Ministry of Woman & Child Development replied to the appellant on 15.03.2023 by stating as follows:
"...कृपर्ा अपने आरटीआई आिेदन ददनांक 28.12.2022 का सन्दर्ु ग्रहि करें जजसमें आपने सूचना का अधिकार अधिननर्म, 2005 के तहत सूचना उपलब्ि कराने के र्लए ननिेदन ककर्ा है । आपके द्िारा आिेदन में मांर्ी र्ई जानकारी केंद्रीर् दत्तक ग्रहि संसािन प्राधिकरि (CARA) से संबंधित है । अतिः आपका आिेदन आरटीआई अधिननर्म 2005 की िारा 6 (3) के तहत उन्हें सीिे आपको जानकारी प्रदान करने के अनयरोि के साथ स्थानांतररत कर ददर्ा जाता है ।..."Page 2 of 4
Having not received any response from the transferee CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.08.2023. The FAA order is not on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Ms. Rupanshi Panday, Assistant Director/CPIO along with Ms. Shivani Chauhan, Jr. Professional present in person.
The respondent firstly tendered her unconditional apology by stating that the reply at initial stage could not be given to the appellant, however, it was unintentional and may be condoned in the interest of justice. She further apprised the Commission that draft reply is ready with her and will be provided to the appellant soon upon receipt of approval from their higher authorities. She added that even otherwise the information sought by the appellant is already in public domain and can be easily accessed from the CARA website.
Decision:
At the outset, the Commission upon a perusal of records adversely viewed the conduct of Ms. Rupanshi Pandey, Assistant Director-cum-CPIO, CARA in not giving any reply to the appellant within the stipulate time as per the RTI Act. Further, no cogent explanation for such delay has been tendered by the CPIO during the hearing. Such casual act of the PIO tramples upon the citizen's right under the RTI Act as well as shows lack of respect towards the statutory provisions. Further, the First Appeal of the appellant was also not adjudicated till date as per available records which depict that this case has been badly handled by the CPIO and FAA, which is not in the spirit of the RTI Act. Their conduct is not appreciated and deserves severe admonition. The current FAA is directed to get it noted in the relevant personal records.
Now, regarding the prayer of Appellant seeking certified copy of desired information which is already available on website. Thus, no longer held by the CPIO. In this regard, attention of the appellant is invited to a judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as The Registrar, Supreme Page 3 of 4 Court Of India vs R S Misra on 21 November, 2017 wherein it was observed that:
"...In the present case, maintaining two parallel machinery: one under SCR and the other under the RTI Act, would clearly lead to duplication of work and unnecessary expenditure, in turn leading to clear wastage of human resources as well as public funds. Also, request for hard copies of information (as contemplated under Section 7 of the RTI Act) in respect of those information which are already available and accessible in the public domain, under the mechanism contemplated under the SCR, will further lead to unnecessary diversion of resources and conflict with other public interest which includes optimal use of limited fiscal resources." Nonetheless, as per the commitments made by the respondent during the hearing, she is directed to give an updated reply qua this RTI application, free of cost, to the appellant, within 4 weeks of the date of receipt of this order. In case reference is made to a website where information is available in public domain, it is highly advisable to not only provide to the appellant the URL of the website but also complete path to access the information as sought in the RTI Application.
FAA to ensure compliance of the above directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Central Adoption Resource Agency, West Block-8, Wing-II, 2nd Floor, R.K Puram, New Delhi - 110066 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)