Transfer u/s 6(3) - CIC: This bench has heard a multitude of appeals/complaints filed by the Appellant against different public authorities; The Appellant is well versed with the modalities of the RTI Act; No further relief is warranted in the matter

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.09.2020 seeking the following information:

The CPIO replied to the appellant on 26.10.2020 as under:-

“…………Your Complaint 157955/2020/vigilance-7 has been duly examined by the Commission and having regards to the nature of the issues raised therein, the same has been forwarded to CVO, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT for necessary action.

2. As the Commission has sent your complaint for necessary action, it does not expect any report from the CVO of the organization concerned. The CVO is expected to scrutinize the complaint within a period of one month of receipt of the complaint from the Commission and decide if any action is required. You may, therefore if required find out the status of your complaint from CVO, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT.

3. The Commission would not entertain any further correspondence in this regard.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2020. FAA’s order dated 21.12.2020 held as under:-

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: P K Mohanty, OSD & CPIO, CVC along with Sanjay Kumar, US & CPIO, MoE present through intra-video conference.

The CPIO, CVC submitted that the Appellant was duly informed that the averred complaint was forwarded to CVC for necessary action on 03.09.2020 and copy of the said acknowledgment that was already sent to the Appellant was resent to him. He further stated that as per the records, the RTI Application appears to have not been further transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to MoE after the advice of the FAA to this effect. He furthermore submitted that as a matter of abundant caution as on date, regardless of the intimations already sent to the applicants, CVC is making due efforts to transfer the RTI Application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to concerned public authorities.

Sanjay Kumar, US & CPIO submitted that the averred RTI Application has not been received in their office.

Decision:

The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the reply provided by the CPIO, CVC at the outset was appropriate as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, in the grounds of the Second Appeal, the Appellant has neither contested the CPIO, CVC’s reply claiming that the action taken report was already provided to the Appellant on 03.09.2020, nor has he mentioned any reasons for NOT having filed the instant RTI Application with Ministry of Education when the intimation of having forwarded the complaint to the said public authority was available to him on 03.09.2020 itself and it was advised therein that for knowing further status, he ought to approach the Ministry of Education.

The said aspect of the case renders the instant RTI Application as not to be in consonance with Section 6(1)(a) of the RTI Act which provides as under:

“6. (1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to—

(a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority;”

The above observation is particularly relevant in the instant case as this bench has heard a multitude of appeals/complaints filed by the Appellant against different public authorities and it will not be out of place to state that the Appellant is well versed with the modalities of the RTI Act and therefore, the facts emanating out of the instant case do not call for any relief to be ordered or any action to be taken against the CPIOs.

In view of the foregoing, while the Commission holds the FAA’s advice to the CPIO to transfer the RTI Application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to be in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act, yet no further relief is warranted in the matter.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Saroj Punhani

Information Commissioner

Citation: Chitresh Kumar Banjare v. Central Vigilance Commission + Ministry of Education, File No: CIC/CVCOM/A/2021/100664, Date of Decision: 17/11/2022