CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. - CIC/WB/C/2009/000121 dated: 17.03.'09
Right to Information Act- Section 18(1) (b)
Complainant: Ms. Renduchintala Rajlaxmi Sharma
Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Nagpur, Maharashtra.
Decision announced 23.3.'10
Facts
:-
The Commission has received a complaint from Ms Renduchintala
Rajlaxmi Sharma of Nagpur, Maharashtra that her request under RTI Act, 2005
submitted to the Central Public Information Officer, Central Bureau of
Investigation, Nagpur, through which CPIO was requested to inform her
regarding time & date when drugs, chemicals, metals, minerals were mixed in
her eatable and her drinking water by FBI USA together with other similar
information by collecting the same from FBI, USA, Queen Elizabeth U.K.,
Germany, Russia, G-8 Countries and all other countries, to enable her to seek
compensation, has not been responded to, even though the same was duly
submitted on dated 09.06.2008.
Admitting the complaint of Miss Sharma under Section 18(1) (b) of RTI
Act, 2005 the commission served a notice on 26.02.2010 on CPIO, Central
Bureau of Investigation, Nagpur for furnishing comments on the complaint. In
response, the CPIO Supdt. of Police, CBI, ACB, Nagpur has submitted his
comments on 08.03.2010 with a copy endorsed to complainant. The CPIO has
informed the Commission that, since the request dated 09.06.2008 of the
complainant which was received on 10.06.2008 was neither under the provision
of Right to Information Act, 2005 as no stamp charges/ fees was affixed/ paid
with the application, nor did the application contain any relevant information and
was not supported by any documents, and also because it was not relevant to
any matter under the purview of CBI, the same was filed after analyzing the
complaint in detail and proper application of mind. He has further informed that
Ms. Sharma, thereafter, filed 1st appeal before the 1st appellate authority on
24.06.2009 along with purported stamped application which was disposed of by
1
the appellate authority through his reply dated 16.09.2009. The CPIO has made
the Commission aware of the habit of the complainant for sending “vague
complaints narrating various incidents which happened are happening under the
sky” by enclosing a copy of similar complaints received from her with the
comments.
Decision
From a perusal of the facts available in the record, it would appear, that
the application of the complainant indeed did not qualify as an application under
RTI Act, 2005 as no fee was paid by the complainant as per the provision of
Right to Information (Regulation of Fee & Cost) Rule, 2005. It has also been
observed that information that was purportedly sought by her through her
application dated 09.06.2008 could not conceivably be held by or under the
control of the CBI, and this has already been conveyed to appellant by the
appellate authority of the department in response to her appeal u/s 19(1). In light
of the above facts present complaint is not sustainable and is hereby dismissed.
Announced this twenty-third day of March 2010. Notice of this decision be
given free of cost to the parties.
Wajahat Habibullah
(Chief Information Commissioner)
23.03.2010
Authenticated true copy, additional copies of order shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charge prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of
this Commission.
Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar
Joint Registrar.
23.03.2010
2