CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2008/00469 dated 17.4.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Complainant - Shri Mangesh Joshi
Respondent - Central Information Commission (CIC)
Facts
:
By an application of 15.10.07 Shri Mangesh Joshi of Solapur, Maharashtra
applied to the CPIO, Central Information Commission making a brief statement
regarding applications made by him the following public authorities:
1. Bank of Maharashtra, Solapur Zonal Office
2. National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi
3. Central Vigilance Commission,
4. Central Bureau of Investigation, Mumbai
5. Central Home Secretary, Home Ministry
6. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension, New Delhi
7. Supreme Court, New Delhi.
8. Chief Justice, High Court
9. Ministry of Overseas Affairs, Govt. of India
10. Rural Development Ministry
11. Maharashtra Public Service Commission
12. Central Information Commission.
Aggrieved by the response of CPIO Sh. G. Subramanian, of which there is
no copy on the file, but has been obtained from CPIO Shri G. Subramanian, Shri
Joshi moved a complaint before this Commission on 8.4.08, the essence of
which is as below:
“It was binding on Mr Subramanian to provide information sought
within thirty days of receipt of application in CIC ( and not by him)
and it was also binding on APIO to transfer the same u/s 6(3) to
other authorities for furnishing information sought on the points
pertaining to them. (Sec. 6(1), 5(2) and 6(3) if read together will
made the following points clear: “
Subsequent to this correspondence took place between CPIO Shri Tarun
Kumar, Jt. Secretary in response to the complaint of 8.4.08 and CPIO Shri G.
Subramanian, Asstt. Registrar who had disposed of the application of 15.10.07,
1
consequent to which further orders were issued by CPIO Shri Tarun Kumar on
16.5.08, as follows:
1. “Your complaint against CPIO, Bank of Maharashtra,
Solapur Zonal Office has been registered in case File No.
CIC/PB/C/2007/00225 and has been put up to
Commissioner for further action. Further response is
awaited on the same.
2. Your complaint against National Human Rights Commission
has been registered in case File No. CIC/OK/C/2009/00356
and further action will be taken on its turn, which will be
intimated to you.
3. This information is not maintained by Central Information
Commission. This information can be obtained by you
directly from the concerned public authority, Central
Vigilance Commission u/s 6(1) for which you are aware.
4. This information is not maintained by Central Information
Commission. This information can be obtained by you
directly from the concerned public authority, Central Bureau
of Investigation u/s 6(1) for which you are aware.
5. This information is not maintained by Central Information
Commission. This information can be obtained by you
directly from the concerned public authority, Ministry of
Home Affairs u/s 6(1) for which you are aware.
6. This information is not maintained by Central Information
Commission. This information can be obtained by you
directly from the concerned public authority, Department of
Personnel & Training u/s 6(1) for which you are aware.
7. This information is not maintained by Central Information
Commission. This information can be obtained by you
directly from the concerned public authority, Supreme Court
u/s 6(1) for which you are aware.
8. This information is not maintained by Central Information
Commission. This information can be obtained by you
directly from the concerned public authority, Ministry of
Overseas Affairs u/s 6(1) for which you are aware.
9. This information is not maintained by Central Information
Commission. This information can be obtained by you
directly from the concerned public authority, Ministry of Rural
Development u/s 6(1) for which you are aware.
10. This information is not maintained by Central Information
Commission. This information can be obtained by you
directly from the concerned public authority, Maharashtra
Public Service Commission u/s 6(1) for which you are aware.
11. Shri G. Subramanian was posted in this Commission on
12.6.2006 as Under Secretary and Asstt. Registrar. His2
Basic pay is Rs. 10,000/- which falls in pay scale of Rs.
10,000-15,200/-“
The complaint was heard through videoconference on 29.4.2009 at 4.30
p.m. Only respondents S/ Shri Tarun Kumar, CPIO / Jt. Secy and G.
Subramanian, Under Secy are present. Although informed and arrangement
made for videoconference, when contacted on the telephone appellant Shri Joshi
submitted that he did not intend to be present.
A copy of the response of Shri G. Subramanian to the application of
15.10.07 has been taken on record. In this Shri Subramanian has pointed out
that of all the information that is held by this Commission, he has offered to
supply copies of the documents sought on payment of fee, but no fee has been
received. In addition, he has provided the following response to appellant Shri
Joshi :
“5. The Regulations/ Rules are on public domain and you can
download them from our website www.cic.gov.in.
6. SEBI is a public authority. You may be referring about Stock
Exchanges having been brought under RTI regime in case
Nos. CIC/AT/A/2006/00684 & CIC/AT/A/2007/00106 which is
in our website. If your require printout you may send Rs. 50
/- (Rs. 2 x pages 25) by way of DD or IPO in favour of PAO,
CAT, payable at New Delhi. Documents will be sent on
receipt of DD/ IPO.
7-15. You have sought information from different pubic authority
and undersigned is not the custodian of the information.
This office is not the custodian of the information, as such
cannot provide you the information which you require. You
are aware of the Public Authority and as pr Section 6 (1) of
the RTI Act, the appellant has to apply to the PIO of the
concerned Public Authority in this case Finance Ministry.
Therefore, you are requested to kindly apply to the
concerned Public Authority and seek information. Moreover,
you are aware of the public authority and you know who the
custodian of the information is. Moreover, please read
section 6 (3) with section 6 (1).
16. Enclosing copy of the decision (Annexure-C) in case this is
not the same decision you are looking for specify the case3
number of search for decisions in our website:
www.cic.gov.in.
17. Information Commissioner, Prof. M. M. Ansari’s full name is
Prof Mohammad Mukhtar Ansari. He was appointed as
Information Commission for five years on 31st October 2006.
18. Copy of the letter is enclosed which was sent by Speed post
(Annexure-D) a photocopy of the dispatch register is also
enclosed (Annexure-E). However, you can visit the
commission and check our dispatch register for yourself on
any working day at a mutually convenient date and time.”
A response in Hindi has also been provided to appellant Shri Joshi.
DECISION NOTICE
Under sub sec. (1) of sec. 6, a person seeking information is expected to
make application accompanying such fee, as may be prescribed to –
a) the CPIO or SPIO, as the case may be, of the concerned public
authority;
b) the Central Asstt. Public Information Officer or State Asstt. Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, specifying the particulars
of the information sought by him or her.
This clause of the RTI Act states the position only qualified by sub sec. 3(i)
of sec. 6, which reads as follows:
“6(3) where an application is made to a public authority requesting
for an information,–
(i) which is held by another public authority;…….
The public authority , to which such application is made, shall
transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to
that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately
about such transfer”
Under the circumstances, it is not open to a citizen to place questions
regarding every public authority before a single public authority unrelated directly
thereto and then expect to get information in accordance with sub sec. (1) of
4
sec. 7. If, of course, there is a relationship between the information held by the
public authority addressed and the public authority that holds the information, in
that case a citizen can rightly expect that the CPIO to whom the application is
addressed will forward the same to the appropriate public authority. On the
above grounds, we find this complaint without merit. Moreover, complainant Shri
Joshi had not taken recourse to sub-sec (1) of sec. 19 in order to move a first
appeal before the Appellate Authority in this Commission. The appeal is,
therefore, dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
29.4.2009
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 Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
29.4.2009
5
