Action taken by the Hon’ble President of India regarding certain letters, copy of notesheet, movement register etc. was sought - CIC: Reply bears no relevance to the information sought for by the Appellant, rather the reply appears to be mechanical

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:

1. “I would like to know the latest action taken by the Hon’ble President of India addressed to CIC New Delhi, a detailed statement of such letters of which has been appended hereunder:-

S. No. Letter No. & Date Towards my appeal dated

1. P1/E/2905180141 of 29-5-18 25.05.18

2. P1/E/2707180282 of 27-7-18 16.07.18

3. P1/E/0509180182 of 05-9-18 30.08.18 ….

13. P2/A/2210180220 of 22-10-18 09.10.18

Copies of each letters as mentioned in the above list have been attached herewith subject to verification by the Hon’ble office of CIC please

2. I need copies of NOTEFILE (Note side correspondence) for each of letter received from the O/o Hon’ble President of India as mentioned in para no. 1 of this appeal of application (RTI)

3. Copies of the movement of movement registry for each of the letters received from the O/o Hon’ble President of India as mentioned in para no. 1 of this appeal of application of RTI indicating the movement of concerned each letter received from the O/o Hon’ble President of India as mentioned in para no. 1 of this appeal of application (RTI) indicated hereunder:-

(i) Date of receipt of letters received from the O/o Hon’ble President of India in CIC inward section.

This is first stage.

(ii) Date of Diary Registration.

This is of second stage.

(iii) Date of letter of intimation to the concerned appellant.

This is of 3rd stage….” etc.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“It is intimated to the appellant that the sought for information is readily available on the website (www.cic.gov.in) of this Commission. The appellant may like to visit 'status on single click' by clicking 'Citizen Service' an icon available on home page of website of this Commission. For any further clarification/query he may like to contact Facilitation Desk of this Commission at tele no. 011-26183053.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.01.2024. The FAA vide order dated 07.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 19.04.2024.

5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Suman Bala, DS & CPIO along with Babu Lal, SO attended the hearing in person.

6. The Appellant stated that the letters referred to by him are lying pending with CIC since the year 2018, yet no information is being made available to him.

7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply provided by the CPIO bears no relevance to the information sought for by the Appellant, rather the reply appears to be mechanical as the reference has been made to letters allegedly sent to CIC by the President’s Secretariat and points 3(i) to (xii) ask for the action taken and Diary details of these letter(s).

Upon a close scrutiny of the copies of the averred letter(s), it is observed that most of these letter(s) are NOT shown to be marked to the CIC by the President’s Secretariat, rather these are forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Telangana or DoPT, only about three of these references are found to be addressed to CIC i.e. mentioned at serial no. 8, 9 & 11 in the table mentioned under point no.1.

Further, it is a matter of record that the archives of the Commission show a number of second appeal(s) filed by the Appellant that pertain to the same grievance of CIC not acting on his myriad second appeal(s) and him being unaware of the status of most of these second appeal(s). The underlying grievance projected through the President’s Secretariat in these cases also appears to be relating to the same allegation of unattended second appeal(s).

Notwithstanding the above findings, the apparent futility or incessant nature of the Appellant’s RTI Application(s) does not absolve the onus from the CPIO to provide a reply that corresponds to the contents of the RTI Application atleast remotely.

9. Having observed as above, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the Appellant specific to the queries raised under points 3(i) to (xii) with reference to the letters specified in the table under point no.1 limited to serial no. 8, 9 & 11, as being letter(s) shown to be addressed to CIC. The reply of the CPIO shall be point-wise stating availability/unavailability of the requested information and in places where clarification has been sought for, non-conformity of such queries to Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act should be specified therein. The said direction shall be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

Lastly, the CPIO is warned to ensure that a point-wise reply is provided to the RTI Applications so as to ensure exercise of due diligence while perusing RTI queries in the future.

10. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: B Parameshwar v. Central Information Commission, CIC/CICOM/A/2024/112035; Date of Decision: 21.05.2025