Appellant complained against nonsupply of information with regard to point Nos. 9, 10 & 11 of his RTI application - CIC: there are no such points present in the said RTI application which contains only 8 points; complaint cannot be sustained
28 Mar, 2014ORDER
The present appeal, filed by Shri Harinder Dhingra against Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), was taken up for hearing on 10.02.2014 when the Respondents were present through Shri J.G. Moses, SSO I and Shri Jeet Singh, SSO II. The Appellant was however not present.
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.03.2011 before the CPIO, CFSL, New Delhi which contained 8 queries, including what is the average time taken by your organization, to examine two signatures in question which are to be compared with other given 45 signatures; if after considerable time, the opinion by your organization is given that these two “signatures” cannot be opinioned thereof for want of more signatures does it not imply that there is an attempt to shield the guilty; if the opinion asked on these two “signatures” look to be of same handwriting then is it presumed that these are forged and so on.
3. The CPIO vide his letter dated 07.04.2011 furnished pointwise reply to the Appellant. The Appellant, however, being dissatisfied with the CPIO’s reply, filed an appeal dated 20.04.2011 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority disposed of this appeal vide his order dated 16.05.2011upholidng the CPIO’s reply.
4. The Appellant thereafter filed the present appeal before the Commission expressing his dissatisfaction with the reply given by the CPIO against point Nos. 2, 3 and 6 of the RTI application. He has also mentioned that the CPIO has not given information on point Nos. 9, 10 & 11 of the RTI application.
5. Having heard the submissions and perused the records, the Commission notes that the Appellant in his present appeal complained against nonsupply of information with regard to point Nos. 9, 10 & 11 of his RTI application, whereas no such points are present in his instant RTI application. The present RTI application of the Appellant contains only 8 points. Therefore, this complaint of the Appellant cannot be sustained. As regards point Nos. 2, 3 & 6 of the RTI application, the Commission notes that the queries made by the Appellant in these points are hypothetical in nature and do not identify any material information as defined in 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. They are based upon a particular situation which the Appellant himself has created. Such queries do not qualify to be information within the meaning of 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 public authorities are not obliged to answer such queries under the RTI Act. In view of this, no further disclosure obligation can be cast on the Respondents with regard to these points.
6. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Sushma Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri HarinderDhingra v. Central Forensic Science Laboratory in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/002032