CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/C/2009/000294 dated 2-6-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Complainant: Shri Janapareddy Venkataramana
Respondent: Central Information Commission (CIC)
Decision announced 8.7.'10
FACTS
By an application of 8.4.2009 Shri J. Venkataramana of Gokavaram,
Andhra Pradesh applied to CPIO Shri Tarun Kumar, Joint Secretary, Central
Information Commission seeking the following information:
“(i) Registration or response numbers (whatever call in
Registry) of two second appeals which were sent
by this applicant on the name of Shri Shailesh
Gandhi, Information Commissioner, Central
Information commission, 4th Floor, Block-IV, Old
JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067 on first day of
April 2009 through Registered post with
acknowledgement due and another second appeal
on the name of Shri Wajahat Habibullah, Chief
Information Commissioner, Central Information
Commission, Room No. 306, 2nd Floor, B Sing,
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi 110066. On second day of April 2009
through registered post with acknowledgment due
and simultaneous two another by registered
posts with same two names and addresses.
(ii) Present status of these two second appeals.
(iii) Details of procedure of allotment of cases normally
followed in the Registry of CIC for disposal of second appeals.
This request was backed with the following plea:
“This information sought for concerns the immediate danger to
the life, liberty of the applicant and concerns also violation of
model code of conduct in the ongoing general elections process
of Two thousand nine and many more grounds. Therefore
kindly provide me true, naturally processed required information
without negligence, within 48 hours to the applicant only through
certainly registered post only.”
To this Shri J. Venkataramana was sent a reply on 30.4.2009 by Shri
Tarun Kumar, Jt. Secretary informing him as follows:
1
“(i) The appeal in the name of Shri Shailesh Gandhi,
Information Commissioner is not traceable at the
moment. Since we are not able to locate any such letter,
therefore, no necessary action has been taken. You are
requested to send us a copy of the same.
(ii) Your two application received in the Commission in two
different envelope and has been registered vide diary no.
20102 & 19855 dated 20.4.2009. However, it has been
sent to the concerned section for registration of cases.
(iii) Another letter dated 31.3.2009 was given diary no. 18731
dated 9.4.2009 was against Department of Post. The
case has been registered and their registration no. is
CIC/AD/C/2009/323?
From the perusal of your RTI application, it is seen that there is
no issue of life and liberty. Therefore, this cannot be treated
within the proviso of section 7 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.’
It seems, however, that this response was not received by Shri
Janapareddy Venkataramana because he has moved an appeal on 4.5.2009
received in this Commission on 5.5.2009 in which he has complained of not
having received a response and accusing CPIO as below: –
“(a) Malaifidely, corrupting, blindly, cloudily the direction of the
third parties who rivals of this appellant by this Central
Public Information Officer.
(b) Several illegal attempts to suppress the application and
other appeals without register and record.
(c) Playing an oral drama with assistance of hi sub-ordinates
and others by this central public information officer to
divert the matter in another way through self rule.
(d) Making duplication for unauthorised false information to
invalid this matter by this central public information
officer.
(e) Dragging on this matter corrupting, destroying the
information of this appellant and passing the information
to others by this central public information officer and
many other prospective grounds.’
Upon this a notice of hearing was issued by Registrar & Appellate
Authority, CIC, Shri L. C. Singhi on 2.6.2009 informing Shri J. Venkataramana
of the hearing scheduled for 10.6.2009, which also he appears not to have
received as reflected in the decision of Appellate Authority of 20.8.2009, which
is as below: –
“3. The notice sent to the appellant has returned un-served.
I have verified the address appearing on the notice and
mentioned by the appellant in his appeal petition.
2
4. From the records of the CPIO, which have been
presented before me, it appears that the RTI application
was received on 13.4.2009 (wrongly mentioned to have
been received on 30.4.2009 in the response given by the
CPIO). The CPIO appears to have responded to the RTI
request vide his letter no. CIC/CPIO/09/568 dated 30th
April 2009 issued on 1st may, 2009.
5. It appears that the First Appeal has been filed by the
appellant without having an occasion to go through the
reply given by the CPIO.
6. I presume that the appellant has, in the meanwhile,
received the response of the CPIO and if he still desires
to persist the matter, he can file a fresh appeal.”
Instead we have received a second appeal from Shri Janapareddy
Venkataramana dated 12.5.2009 complaining of “nil” reply both from CPIO and
Appellate Authority and praying as follows: –
“(a) Immediate supply of required authenticated information to
this appellant only.
(b) Impose penalties on the central public information officer.
(c) Disciplinary action against the Central public information
officer.
(d) Pay compensation of this appellant for the several
damages in the process.
(e) Exposé this case to the public at large through point and
electronic media.
(f) And any other reliefs deems fit under the law.’
We have received a response of 10.6.2010 from Deputy Registrar and
Nodal CPIO Shri M. C. Sharma to our appal notice of 9.6.2010 in which he has
submitted as follows: –
“As per record available Shri Janapareddy Venkataramana
submitted an RTI application dated 8.4.2009 under RTI Act,
2005 seeking information (copy enclosed). The CPIO replied
the same on 30.4.2009 (copy enclosed). Not satisfied with the
reply of the CPIO Shri Janapareddy Venkataramana submitted
the First appeal before the First Appellate Authority and the First
Appellate Authority issued a notice for hearing on 2.6.2009
(copy enclosed) fixing the date for hearing on 10.6.2009. First
Appellate Authority decided the matter vide decision no.
CIC/AA/A/2009/227 dated 20.8.2009 (copy enclosed).”
The responses quoted by us above with the attachments received from
the CPIO’s office, which stands quoted above, are not a part of Shri
Janapareddy Venkataramana’s appeal. The appeal was heard with
3
arrangement for videoconference on 8-7-2010. Only respondent Shri Tarun
Kumar, Jt. Secretary is present.
DECISION NOTICE
From the above it would appear that appellant Shri Janapareddy
Venkataramana had not received a response to his original application of
8.4.2009. However, we have not received any further response from him with
regard to the orders of 20.8.2009 of Appellate Authority Shri L. C. Singhi,
Registrar, CIC, passed subsequent to the registration of his second appeal.
Under the circumstances we must assume that he is satisfied with this
response. Nevertheless a copy of the response to our appeal notice received
from CPIO Shri M. C. Sharma and not endorsed to appellant Shri Janapareddy
Venkataramana will now be endorsed to appellant Shri Janapareddy
Venkataramana and sent to him by speed post as a measure of abundant
caution. The appeal itself having been moved on non-receipt of the responses
against which if received, we have no appeal, the present appeal is dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
8-7-2010
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
8-7-2010
4