Appellant: Is BCCI is a public authority under the RTI Act? - Respondent: Information is presumptive & vague in nature - CIC: The step taken for dealing with the RTI application is satisfactory; Appellant was admonished not to file frivolous applications
31 Jan, 2018ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed RT1 application dated 08.10.2016 seeking information as whether BCCI is a public authority under the RTI Act etc.
2. The CPIO responded on 24.10.2016 that the requested information is not covered under 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; “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. The appellant filed first appeal dated 06.11.2016 with First Appellate Authority (FAA), The FAA responded on 30.12.2016. The appellant filed second appeal on 11.02.2017 before the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to him.
Hearing:
3. The respondent participated in the hearing in person and was also represented by their advocate. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
4. The respondent stated that the appellant has been replied to vide letter dated 24.10.2016. The respondent stated that the sought for information is not covered in the definition of Information’ under 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; “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. The respondent stated that it is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of the duties of the CPIO to interpret the law, judgments/orders of the Hon’ble Court or to give explanation, opine, comments or advise on the matters etc. Further, the respondent stated that the all the judgments/orders/case status of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are available on the website of the Supreme Court viz www.sci.nic.in. In addition to above, the respondent stated that the appellant has been informed that the certified copies of the judicial record can be obtained under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 on payment of prescribed fee and charges, giving full particulars of the case. .
5. The respondent stated that the sought for information is presumptive and vague in nature. Reply to the queries would be interpretation of the orders of the Hon’ble Court etc.
Discussion/ observation:
6. The Commission observed that the steps/action taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI application is satisfactory.
7. The Commission observed that the appellant has failed to attend the hearings in his cases on Video Conferencing repeatedly.
Decision:
8. No intervention is required in the matter at the level of this Commission.
9. The appellant is admonished not to file frivolous/vague RTI applications/ complaints / appeals as it disproportionately diverts the resources of the Public Authority as well as the valuable time of this Commission.
10. Dy. Registrar is directed to take a note that henceforth; appellant may he directed to be present personally in his cases before the Commission, New Delhi.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
(Radha Krishna Mathur)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Omprakash Kashiram v. Supreme Court of India in Appeal No. CIC/ SCOFI /A/2017/112726, Dated of Decision: 08.12.2017