CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2009/000106 dated 17.2.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Mohammed Muzibur Rahman
Respondent - Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)
Decision announced : 10.8.2009
Facts
:
By an application of 5.8.08 Shri Muzibur Rahman of Korba, Chhattisgarh
applied to the CPIO, MHA seeking the following information regarding a letter
addressed to them by the National Commission for Minorities, Delhi dated 6.5.08:
“Kindly provide me information regarding providing security to Md.
Muzibur Rahman –Pt. No.1 Certified copies of complete information regarding
action taken till dated from MHA New Delhi in above
reference letter.Pt. No.2 Certified copies of direction to provide security for
protection to Md. M. Rahman and his family from Central
Govt.Pt. No.3 A copy of direction for stop harassment and
victimization.Pt. No. 4 Total No. of Security Guards (Gunman) provided for
protection to Md. M. Rahman and his family from Central
Govt.Pt.No.5 Certified copies of complete case file with note sheet
and IB enquiry report.”To this Shri Rahman received a response dated 2.9.08 from CPIO Shri S.
K. Bhatnagar, Dy. Secy. MHA as follows:
“The undersigned is directed to refer to application No. Nil dated
5.8.08 (received in this Ministry on 13.8.08) from Md. Muzibur
Rahman regarding action taken on National Commission for
Minorities letter dated 6.5.2008 and to say that the same has not
been received in this Ministry.”1
Not having received the response by then, however, appellant Sh.
Rahman moved his first appeal of 5.9.08 before the Appellate Authority in the
MHA, upon which by his order of 10.10.08 Shri R. P. Nath, Jt. Secy., MHA found
as follows:“Whereas the appellant has already been informed vide this Office
O. M. of even number dated 2.9.08 that the National Commission
for Minorities letter dated 6.5.08 has not been received in this
Ministry. Since his representation addressed to the National
Commission for Minorities has not been received in this Ministry, no
action thereon was possible. Now, therefore, the appellant is
against advised to send a copy of the same to this Ministry to
enable proper action being taken thereon.’Shri Rahman has then moved the second appeal before us with the
following prayer:“CPIO and 1st AA Ministry of Home Affairs as well as Under
Secretary of National Commission for Minorities may be invited
before the Hon’ble CIC to explain their reason for non supply of
information and non receipt of petition from NCM to MHA, New
Delhi.• Complete and true information may be provided forthwith. It may
kindly be noted that the problems raised with the applicant as he
has exposed misappropriation of funds meant for PMNRF
through RTIs.• It is hereby requested to penalize the CPIO and 1st AA as per
RTI Act u/s 20(1). A heavy penalty.”In response to our appeal notice of Nov., 2008, CPIO Shri Bhatnagar has
submitted as follows:“iv) It appears that Shri Muzibur Rahman, before sending his
appeal dated 5.9.08, did not receive the OM dated 2.9.08
informing him that the National Commission for Minorities
letter dated 6.5.08 forwarding his representation containing
allegations of the threat to his life has not been received in
this Ministry. Since the representation was not received in
this Ministry, the question of taking action on the same (as
pointed out by him in his RTI application) did not arise.
Accordingly, the Appellate Authority, Ministry of Home Affairs
informed him vide his order dated 10.10.08 (copy enclosed)
that the National Commission for Minorities letter dated
6.5.2008 has not been received in this Ministry.2
v) He was also informed by the appellate authority that since
his representation addressed to the National Commission for
Minorities has not been received in this Ministry, no action
thereon was possible. The appellant was, therefore, again
advised to send a copy of the same to this Ministry to enable
proper action being taken thereon.’He has concluded his arguments in that letter as below:
“A further report in the matter would be furnished on receipt of copy
of representation of Shri Muzibur Rahman from National
Commission for Minorities.”Subsequently on receipt of further information from the National
Commission for Minorities, CPIO Shri Bhatnagar has sent us a further OM of
26.12.08, in which he has submitted as follows:“It is pertinent to mention here that the RTI Application dated 6.5.08
was incomplete to the extent that while the applicant could enclose
a copy of the NCM letter dated 6.5.08, he failed to enclose a copy
of his own representation which is stated to have been sent by him
to the National Commission for Minorities. He was, therefore,
requested on 2.9.08 to send a copy of the same. Since, he did not
provide it to this office even on request, the National Commission
for Minorities was requested to send a copy of his representation
dated 31.8.07 and the same has been received in this office on
4.12.08.’He has then concluded as below:
“It would be observed from above that there is no question of non
supply of information by the CPIO, MHA and the contentions of the
appellant in this regard are not correct. Regarding non receipt of
the NCM letter dated 6.5.08, it is stated that the record of this
Ministry was checked up before requesting Shri Rahman, vide OM
dated 2.9.08, and the concerned Section (CR Section) had
intimated that the above mentioned letter was not received by
them.”The appeal was heard through video conference on 10.8.09. The
following are present:Appellant at NIC Studio, Chhattisgarh
Md. Muzibur Rehman
Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi3
Shri T. A. Srinivasan, DS & CPIO, NCM
Shri S. K. Bhatnagar, Dy. Secy. / CPIO
Shri Suresh Kodnani, S.O.
Shri Srinivasan, DS & CPIO, National Commission for Minorities submitted
a copy of his Dispatch Register of 7.5.08, which at Sr. No. 718 lists a letter
addressed to the Secretary, MHA; a copy of this entry was also handed over to
respondent CPIO Shri Bhatnagar.
CPIO Shri Bhatnagar submitted that after having received the response of
Minorities Commission, the matter was taken up with the Government of
Chhattisgarh, DGP Chhattisgarh and the Ministry of Coal. He also submitted a
copy of OM dated 13.1.09 received from Ministry of Coal in which Shri P. Soma
Shekar Reddy, Director has informed him as below:
“The reply has already been sent to the petitioner vide this
Ministry’s letter of even no. dated 16.12.07 and 5.2.2008 and a D.
O. letter is also sent to Chairman, CIL for ensuring that Shri
Rehman is not harassed in the case and necessary measures are
taken to ensure his security (copies along with annexure
enclosed).’
This letter encloses directions issued to the Chairman, Coal India,
Chairman & Managing Director, South Eastern Coal Fields, and G.M. Kusmunda
Area. Shri Rahman submitted that at point No. 5 of his application, he has asked
specifically for the IB Report since the IB had conducted an enquiry in the matter
and interviewed him for the purpose. CPIO Shri Bhatnagar responded by
intimating that he had no information regarding the enquiry report and had acted
upon the information collected from all the offices working directly with him
leading to the conclusion that no correspondence had been received from the
National Commission for Minorities. However, on the basis of the information
now obtained in the form of a copy of the dispatch register from the National
Commission for Minorities, he will again enquire into the matter specifically with
regard to the Police Department and ask the concerned CPIOs of the Ministry of
Home Affairs to provide an appropriate reply to appellant Shri Muzibur Rahman.
4
DECISION NOTICE
From the above, it is clear that the Ministry of Home Affairs was unable to
take action on the request of Shri Muzibur Rahman because of failure to receive
the original endorsement from National Commission for Minorities. Now that
CPIO has been given the information as to the dispatch of the request from
National Commission for Minorities, he will enquire into this matter and ascertain
whether there has been any failure at the level of Receipt Section of MHA and
take necessary action to remedy such a defect. However, it is quite possible
that another Wing of MHA may have received equivalent applications in the
MHA. This appears likely because of the fact that appellant Shri Muzibur
Rahman claims to have been interviewed by the IB. Upon determining
whether there is such a Wing, which has received such a request, this
application will be transferred to that Wing so that an answer may be sent
to appellant Shri Muzibur Rahman within ten working days of the date of
receipt of this Decision Notice. The appeal is disposed of accordingly
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
10.8.2009
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
10.8.2009
5