Status of representation submitted to Brig AS Katoch and related information was sought - PIO: Matter is sub-judice; They are not in a position to access any information from Deccan Technical Press being an entirely private organization - CIC: No action
9 Aug, 2021Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the status of letter/ representation dated 04-10-2017 submitted to Brig AS Katoch, Dean, FEL, Dy. Chairman of Deccan Technical Press (Regimental Training Cell), MCEME, Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad.
(2) Provide para-wise remarks, if any, on the above stated letter/representation.
(3) Provide the status of letter dated 31-12-2017, submitted to the Commandant-MCEME-cum-Chairman-Deccan Technical Press (DTP) / Regimental Training Cell, MCEME.
4. And other related information
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
The FAA has denied the information u/s 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.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present to plead his case. However, in his second appeal memo, he had stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO or the FAA’s order as the desired information has been incorrectly denied to him and the contention of the FAA that Deccan Technical Press is a Private entity is also not correct. The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 10.01.2019 & thereafter on 28.02.2019.
The appellant was not present to plead his case. However, in his second appeal memo, he had stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO or the FAA’s order as the desired information has been incorrectly denied to him and the contention of the FAA that Deccan Technical Press is a Private entity is also not correct. The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 10.01.2019 & thereafter on 28.02.2019.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that initial reply of the CPIO was incomplete in the sense that even though the CPIO in his reply had stated that the issue of pay and perks of the appellant is sub-judice before the Hyderabad High Court, therefore, no action could be taken till the case is resolved, however, no exemption was claimed by the CPIO. Thereafter, the FAA in his order had denied the information while stating that Deccan Technical Press is a private entity and does not come under the purview of the RTI Act. This order is also not proper as according to 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 definition of the term information includes such information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any prevalent law in force; it follows then that if information on the said paras is available with the Respondent office or can be accessed from Deccan Technical Press, it should be obtained and shared with the appellant.
During the hearing, it was enquired from the CPIO as to what is the status of the pending court case, to which he submitted that the matter is still sub-judice and they are not in a position to access any information from Deccan Technical Press being an entirely private organization. The Commission accepts the submissions of the CPIO and since they are not in a position to access any information from Deccan Technical Press, no relief can be given.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission accepts the submissions of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: M Yadagiri v. Military College of Electronics and Mechanical Engineering (MCEME) in File no.: CIC/IARMY/A/2019/129648, Date of Decision: 12/05/2021