Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri N. Narayana Reddy vs Department Of Legal Affairs on 25 August, 2009

Central Information Commission
Shri N. Narayana Reddy vs Department Of Legal Affairs on 25 August, 2009
                 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                               .....

F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000545
Dated, the 25th August, 2009.

Appellant : Shri N. Narayana Reddy

Respondents : Department of Legal Affairs

Matter was heard through videoconferencing on 10.08.2009 with
the appellant present at NIC VC facility at Krishnagiri and the
respondents at the Commission’s New Delhi office, from where the
Commission conducted its hearing.

2. It is seen from appellant’s RTI-application dated 25.03.2009 that
he seems to be concerned about the appointment of some other person
⎯ a third-party ⎯ as Notary Public, who, he believes, was not qualified
to hold the post. Appellant has, therefore, asked questions relating to
the procedure followed by the Government for appointment of Notary
Public, the circumstances of the appointment of one, Shri K.Nagarajan
as Notary Public despite, as believed by the appellant, the former not
possessing the requisite qualification. Appellant has also wanted to
know as to why no chance for appointment as Notary Public was given
to Shri S. Ramesh, who, according to him, was the most deserving
candidate.

3. CPIO, in his communication dated 02.04.2009, explained to the
appellant the procedure followed for appointment of notaries and drew
his attention to the Notaries Act and the Rules. No information
regarding the allusion to wrongful appointment of Shri K. Nagarajan and
allegedly wrongful rejection of Shri S. Ramesh for appointment as
Notary Public was provided on the ground that such queries did not
meet the parameters set-out by Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

4. Appellate Authority upheld the decision in his order dated
06.05.2009.

5. I find that the information requested by the appellant has been
properly disclosed and what has been denied to him has been rightly
declined. There is no infirmity in the orders ⎯ either of the CPIO or of
the Appellate Authority.

AT-25082009-15.doc
Page 1 of 2

6. The appeal, therefore, fails. Closed.

7. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.

( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

AT-25082009-15.doc
Page 2 of 2