PIO: The subject matter does not concern them but may be pursued with the appropriate State Govt of UP & Punjab - Appellant’s advocate argued that the PIO should have pursued the case with the concerned public authority - CIC: Order of PIO upheld

Action taken on petition seeking release of Appellant’s husband (a resident of Uttar Pradesh) from the Central Jail, Patiala was sought from the Ministry of Law & Justice - PIO: The subject matter does not concern their department but may be pursued with the appropriate State Government of Uttar Pradesh & Punjab. Appellant’s advocate argued that the Respondent office should have pursued the case with the concerned public authority. CIC: By virtue of his profession, the appellants’ advocate is expected to be acquainted with the jurisdictional powers of the State and Centre while filing petitions particularly in matters such as the instant one where there is ostensibly no overlap of Centre & State jurisdiction. CIC: Section 6(1)(a) of the RTI Act also ordains a RTI applicant with the duty to file the RTI Applications with the concerned public authority

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.3.2020 seeking the following information:

1- Action taken report on the petition dt : 07-03-2020

2- File notings.

3- Outcome of the petition in question

Being dissatisfied with the non-receipt of any reply from CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.06.2020. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present: -

Appellant: Represented by Advocate Ramesh Kumar Mishra through audio conference.

Respondent: R K Choudhary, ALA & CPIO present through audio conference.

The CPIO submitted that the instant RTI Application and the averred petition seeking release of Appellant’s husband (who is a resident of Uttar Pradesh) from the Central Jail, Patiala was not received in their department, yet upon taking notice of a copy of the petition along with the First Appeal, the Appellant was apprised of the fact that the subject matter does not concern their department but may be pursued with the appropriate State Government of Uttar Pradesh & Punjab. He further stated that yet as a matter of abundant caution the relevant RTI case records were also forwarded to the respective Chief Secretaries vide the same reply of 21.07.2020.

The Representative of the Appellant argued that the Respondent office should have pursued the case with the concerned public authority.

Decision:

The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of intervention in the matter and upholds the submissions of the CPIO.

The argument of the Appellant’s advocate does not hold ground and by virtue of his profession he is expected to be acquainted with the jurisdictional powers of the State and Centre while filing petitions particularly in matters such as the instant one where there is ostensibly no overlap of Centre & State jurisdiction.

Moreover, Section 6(1)(a) of the RTI Act also ordains a RTI applicant with the duty to file the RTI Applications with the concerned public authority.

The Appellant is therefore advised on the same lines as that of the CPIO’s reply of 21.07.2020.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani

Information Commissioner

Citation: Arati Rajbhar v. Ministry of Law & Justice in File No: CIC/MOLAJ/A/2020/127106, Date of Decision: 27/01/2022