Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/WB/A/2009/000941SM
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 18 May 2011
Date of decision : 18 May 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Mange Ram
924/4, Urban Estate,
Gurgaon - 122 001.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Parliament of India,
Lok Sabha Secretariat,
Parliament House/Annexe,
New Delhi - 110 001.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Brahm Dutt, JS/CPIO,
(ii) S. Louis Martin, JS,
(iii) Shri R.C. Ahuja, AS (Retd),
(iv) Shri Pawan Kumar, Addl. Director,
(v) Harish Chander, DS,
(vi) Shri Surinder Singh, Director/CAPIO
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. In our order dated 1 March 2011, we had directed the CPIO not only to
provide the desired information against all the queries of the Appellant but also
to appear before us along with the officers concerned responsible for not
CIC/WB/A/2009/000941SM
providing the information in time to explain the reasons. Today, the CPIO along
with the relevant officers appeared before us during the hearing. The Appellant
was also present. We heard their submissions.
3. The Appellant had made, in all, 11 queries. In the detailed reply sent to
him, the CPIO has observed that the relevant records against most of the
queries were no longer available and, therefore, no information could be given.
On the other hand, the Appellant pointed out that he had proof with him of
having submitted several communications and complaints at various levels in
the Lok Sabha secretariat and, therefore, it was not right on the part of the
CPIO or others to claim that no records were available. During the detailed
hearing of the matter, it turned out that in the Lok Sabha secretariat, there is no
practice of maintaining any record of movement of communications, such as,
letters et cetera within the secretariat and, therefore, it was not possible to
identify exactly if any communication as claimed by the Appellant had indeed
been received in the relevant section or not. However, on a thorough scrutiny of
the queries of the Appellant and the reply given by the CPIO in each case, we
noted that due diligence had not been made in tracing the relevant
papers/records before giving a summary response that no record was available.
4. In the light of the above, we would like to direct the CPIO once again to
search for the relevant records in the sections concerned and, if traced, to
provide copies of the relevant action taken reports and other documents to the
Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order. However, if
some or all of the relevant records are not traceable any longer, we direct the
CPIO to confirm this to the Appellant in a sworn affidavit within the same period.
We further direct the CPIO to state in the said affidavit if the relevant records
CIC/WB/A/2009/000941SM
had been destroyed in terms of the guidelines followed by the Lok Sabha
secretariat for retention of records.
5. While dealing with this matter, we were rather surprised to know that the
Lok Sabha secretariat did not have any system of maintaining records about
the receipt and dispatch of communications including files among its various
divisions. Unless such catalogues are maintained to keep a record of the trail of
movement of papers in the office, retrieval of the relevant records when sought
under the Right to Information (RTI) Act would become extremely difficult. In
fact, section 4 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act clearly mandates that the
public authority should maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a
manner and form which would facilitate the right to information. In this age of
computerisation, maintaining such catalogues to keep a tab on the movement
of records from one division to another or from one office to another should be
very easy. We would like the CPIO to place this order before the Secretary
General for appropriate action in this regard.
6. The matter is disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
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.
CIC/WB/A/2009/000941SM
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/WB/A/2009/000941SM