CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/00092
Dated, the 21st May, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Dasharath Singh Yadav
Respondents : Department of Legal Affairs
This matter was heard on 05.05.2009. In response to
Commission’s notice dated 01.04.2009, appellant was absent when
called. Respondents were represented by Shri M.K. Sharma, CPIO.
2. Appellant’s RTI-application dated 24.07.2008 relates to
information regarding the status of the processing of his two
applications dated 13.11.2007 and 12.03.2008 addressed to “Learned
Additional Solicitor General of India, Ministry of Law & Justice,
Department of Legal Affairs, Allahabad High Court, for seeking
permission to launch prosecution against Mr.V.K. Srivastava and
Mr.S.Selvaraja, Assistant Commissioners of Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan, Bhopal”.
3. The Appellate Authority, in his direction dated 16.10.2008,
informed appellant that as he had filed his two applications seeking
sanction to prosecute the officials of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
before the Asst Solicitor General of India, Allahabad, he should seek
information from the appropriate public authority. No information
corresponding to his RTI-application was held within the meaning of
Section 2(j) of the RTI Act by the Ministry of Law and Justice,
Government of India.
4. Appellant, in his second-appeal, has stated that “the CPIO and
the AA as designated by the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of
Law and Justice, Government of India to function for providing
information required from concerned department”, they were obliged
to provide information requested by him relating to his petitions for
sanction of prosecution filed before Addl. Solicitor General of India.
5. I do not find much merit in the submission of the appellant.
Appellate Authority was right in holding that appellant should seek
appropriate information and appellate relief only from the public
authority to which the information pertains. He cannot come to the
AT-21052009-02.doc
Page 1 of 2
Ministry of Law & Justice to demand an action when the original
petition itself was never made before that Ministry.
6. In view of the above, this petition appears to be a non-serious
appeal, which is rejected.
7. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
8. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-21052009-02.doc
Page 2 of 2