PIO returned the RTI application stating that the information does not pertain to Office of Registrar General instead of transferring the application u/s 6(3) - a complaint was filed u/s 18 - CIC did not find any reason to interfere in the matter
Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, hereinafter called the complainant, has filed the present complaint dated 12.6.2013 before the Commission against the respondent Office of the Registrar General, India, New Delhi for not providing information in response to his RTI-application dated 15.5.2013. The complainant was absent whereas the respondent were represented by Dr. Ravi Shankar, Deputy Director and Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. Supervisor.
2. The complainant through his RTI application dated 15.5.2013 sought information on the following three queries:
“(1) Whether “Gramin Bal and Manav Vikas Samiti”, Arariya (Bihar) a registered NGO under MHA;
(2) If yes, on what terms and conditions and
(3) Provide list of organizations which are registered with the MHA from Arariya (Bihar)”.
The CPIO vide letter No. 27012/1/2012-Ad.I (RTI) dated 29.5.2013 informed the complainant that the information sought did not pertain to Office of the Registrar General.
3. The complainant has not exhausted first appellate channel under the provisions of Section 19(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI and directly approached the Commission in complaint.
4. In his complaint filed before the Commission the complainant requests for taking appropriate action against the CPIO on the grounds that the CPIO has simply returned the RTI application stating that the information does not pertain to Office of Registrar General, India, instead of transferring the RTI application to the concerned Ministry/Department u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act.
5. In the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another Vs. State of Manipur and Another (Civil appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 arising out of S.L.P(C) No. 32768-32769/2010) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under vide Judgment dated 12.12.2011: “Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act.”
6. The present complaint has been filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 and is being dealt with accordingly. In view of the fact that the respondent CPIO has already replied to the complainant vide letter dated 29.5.2013 informing him that the matter does not pertain to the Office of the Registrar General, the Commission does not find any reason to interfere in the matter. The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
Citation: Shri Ajay Kumar Singh v. Office of the Registrar General, India in Case No. CIC/SS/C/2013/0000295