Case Law Details
Jugal Purohit Vs PIO (Central Information Commission)
Central Information Commission is of the considered opinion that the reply of the PIO is not in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Prime Minister’s Office has merely stated that details regarding imposition of nation-wide lockdown sought by the Applicant attract the provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. Thus information sought by the Appellant has not been provided to him nor has appropriate provisions of the RTI Act have been cited justifying exemption from disclosure, in the reply sent to the Appellant. Therefore, the reply sent by the PIO is found untenable in law.
Under the circumstances, the Commission directs the PIO, PMO to re-examine the RTI application and provide a revised point wise response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order.
FULL TEXT OF THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.11.2020 which was responded to by the CPIO/Under Secretary, PMO vide letter dated 21.01.2021 as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.01.2021. The FAA/Director, PMO vide order dated 17.02.2021 disposed of the first appeal based on the reasons given below:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A communication dated 23.06.2022 has been received from the Appellant requesting to be heard via phone or other online mechanism since he is out of town.
Hearing was scheduled through audio conferencing at the request of the Appellant. Both parties are heard virtually and the Appellant reiterated his contentions stating the PIO has neither furnished information nor denied it citing any of the exemption clauses as specified under the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts of the case, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the reply of the PIO is not in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act as has been rightly pointed out by the Appellant. The Respondent has merely stated that details sought by the Applicant attract the provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. Thus information sought by the Appellant has not been provided to him nor has appropriate provisions of the RTI Act have been cited justifying exemption from disclosure, in the reply sent to the Appellant. Therefore, the reply sent by the PIO is found untenable in law.
Under the circumstances, the Commission directs the PIO, PMO to re-examine the RTI application and provide a revised point wise response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report in this regard alongwith necessary proof of service by 31.07.2022.
The aforementioned appeal is disposed off accordingly.
