CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00707 dated 3-10-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Complainant: Shri Anil Sood
Respondent: Central Information Commission (CIC)
FACTS
By an application of 7-8-07 Shri Anil Sood of Pitampura, Delhi applied
to the CPIO, CIC seeking the following information:
“1. In how many days Complaints, Appeals and orders are
put on the CIC website? Why my complaint dated
16.7.2007 and two appeals dated 3.7.2007 are not
updated on website delivered personally?
2. In how many days complaint for non compliance of orders
of Information Commissioner is taken up?
3. In case No. CIC/At/2007/00481, why the orders are not
on website? Whereas the order dated 4th July, 2007 are
received by me. I want to inspect the above mentioned
file. Kindly provide the certified copies.
4. Can PPS refuse to show the file to the complainant?
What action can be taken against him for not allowing the
inspection of file to the Complainant?”
To this he received a response from Shri G.Subramanian, Asstt.
Registrar & CPIO dated 18-8-07 as follows:-
“1. Once the Complaints or appeals are received in the
Commission, they marked to the concerned
Commissioners, where they are scrutinized for registry or
otherwise. No information is available about the time
taken for putting the same on website.
2. No data is available.
3. Efforts are made to put all the orders on website.
However, it is not mandatory one. As per the provisions
of the RTI Act, 2005, the copies of the orders of the
Commission are forwarded to the concerned parties. You
can inspect the file on any working day with prior
intimation to the undersigned. You inspect the document
and indicate the copies you require the same will be
given to you on payment after certifying the same.
1
4. PPS is not the competent person to allow inspection of
file. So the question of action does not arise.
5. Information Commissioners or Chief Information
Commissioner may treat email message as complaint if
the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a
person.
6. Information is not covered under section 2 (f) of the RTI
Act, 2005.”
Not satisfied Shri Anil Sood moved his first appeal before Shri L.C.
Singh, 1st Appellate Authority, on 25-8-07 in which his objections to the
information received regarding the following points were as below:
Query No. 1 “The CPIO fails to mention the normal time period
in which appeals or complaints are put on the website.
He didn’t replied about orders of Information
Commissioner. CPIO means to say that it may take one,
two, five or more years to put appeal/ complaint on
website.
Query No. 2 The given information is misleading.
Query No. 5 The reply is vague in nature.
Query No. 6 The reply by CPIO that information is not covered
under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005 is misleading.”
Regarding the information supplied in response to query Nos.3 and 4
Shri Sood’s objection was to the manner of disposal by the Central
Information Commission and not to the information provided.
The appeal was heard on 19-1-2009. The following are present.
Appellant
Shri Anil Sood.
Respondents
Shri L. C. Singhi, Registrar.
Shri G. Subramanian, Under Secretary.
Shri D. C. Singh, Under Secretary.
Shri L.C. Singhi, at present Registrar in this Commission submitted that
he had in fact heard the first appeal on 17-12-2007. However, since the
matter had been discussed in detail, no written orders have been issued.
2
Such written orders have subsequently been issued in the order of 1st
Appellate Authority in which following is the decision:
“5. At the time of hearing, it was explained to the appellant
that he is entitled to get an information which is available
on records. The CPIO cannot answer to hypothetical
situations and about something which is not a part of the
record. The definition of the word ‘information’ as defined
under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
was also explained to the appellant. It was also made
clear that the reply submitted by the CPIO is not evasive
and he has virtually provided whatever information was
available on records. The CPIO has already requested
him to inspect the documents and indicate the documents
for which he requires copies. There was, therefore, no
denial of information on the part of the CPIO.
6. The appellant was informed that the appeal petition has
no merit and the same stands dismissed. It was also
explained that if he so desires he may submit his Second
Appeal before the Central Information Commission.”
DECISION NOTICE
From the above it is clear that, in fact, the first appeal of appellant Shri
Anil Sood has been heard and disposed of. We have no appeal against the
order of 1st Appellate Authority since the second appeal before us was only on
the ground of failure of the 1st Appellate Authority to respond to Shri Anil
Sood’s appeal.
In light of this there are no further grounds for our intervention in this
case and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
However, this application raises various questions which are of
importance regarding functioning of the Commission and the time frames for
various actions like uploading the decisions, announcement of the decisions
after the hearing, compliance etc. These observations/suggestions are of
concern to the full Commission and may, therefore, be presented at the next
weekly meeting of the Full Commission. If appellant wishes to attend such a
meeting he is welcome to do so to present his suggestions.
3
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
19-1-2009
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
19-1-2009
4