Excerpt
The Chief Information Commissioner Y.K Sinha stated that since both parties are the same in both cases, the cases have been combined together for hearing and decision.
Facts
The case relates to two RTI application cases filed by the appellant, seeking information from the PMO. In the first case (Case No. 637456), the Appellant filed an RTI application on 17 September 2018 seeking certain information from the PMO. The Under Secretary responded to the application on 9th October 2018. The Appellant was not satisfied with the response. So, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23rd October 2018. The FAA order on 27th October 2018 had stated that the response made by the Under Secretary was valid. The Appellant wasn’t satisfied with the decision of the first appeal. Hence, he approached the Commission with a second appeal.
In the second case (Case No. 657092), the Appellant had filed another RTI application seeking certain information from the PMO on 19th August 2019. The Under Secretary on 19th September 2019, responded to the Appellant stating that he needs to file this appeal to the concerned public authority. The Appellant was dissatisfied with this response and filed a First Appeal on 22nd September 2019. The FAA order which was made on 11th October 2019 supported the response made by the Under Secretary. The Appellant was not satisfied with the decision made in the First Appeal filed for a Second Appeal.
The Central Information Commission has decided to hear both of the Second Appeals.
Arguments Advanced
The court hearing was done through video conferencing. The Appellant didn’t appear for the hearing despite prior intimation. The Respondent was represented by the PMO, Shri Praveen Kumar (CPIO) and Shri Arun Kumar. The Respondent side stated that a proper response was given to the application of the Appellant. Shri Praveen Kumar stated that even actions were taken on the Appellant’s complaints. He also stated that the second application did not pertain to the PMO and must be submitted to the concerned public authority. Hence, such information must be provided to the Appellant by the concerned public authority and not the PMO.
Court’s Observation
The Court analyzed the case Ketan Kantilal Modi vs. Central Board of Excise and Customs to understand the meaning of “public authority” as mentioned in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act and also referred to Section 6(1) of the RTI Act to understand the type of information that may be accessible to the public.
Court’s Decision
The Court decided that when the Appellant knows the location of certain information vis-à-vis public authority, then the Appellant must approach only that public authority that has the required information. A public authority that does not have the required information, will not be obliged to provide that information. Hence the PMO will not be obliged to provide the necessary information.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
