Shri T.K.

Roy vs Department Of Legal Affairs on 15 January, 2010

Central Information Commission

Shri T.K. Roy vs Department Of Legal Affairs on 15 January, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....

F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000802 Dated, the 15th January, 2010.

Appellant : Shri T.K. Roy Respondents : Department of Legal Affairs Hearing in this second-appeal
was held on 12.01.2010 in the presence of both parties. Appellant was present in person, while the
respondents were represented by Shri Nirmal Singh, Director & CPIO and Shri Jagdish Kumar,
Section Officer.

2. Appellant, through his RTI-application dated 04.08.2009, addressed to the CPIO, Ministry of
Law and Justice sought information on multiplicity of subjects such as which posts are not covered
under the operation of Article 68 of the Constitution of India; provision of the Constitution under
which constitutional functionaries could be burdened with non-constitutional functions by ordinary
Acts of Parliament; a copy of the memoranda of procedure for appointment of Chief Justice and
other Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court; file-notings relating to appointment of the
present Chief Justice of India and other judges; names of the Judges of the Supreme Court and the
High Courts belonging to various caste and gender categories; exempted category of
RTI-functionaries under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code and 197 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, among others.

3. CPIO, through his communication dated 07.09.2009, declined to disclose the information on the
ground that it was not held by the public authority which he represented, i.e. the Ministry of Law
and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs.

4. Appellate Authority, in his order dated 09.10.2009, noted that, "So far as transfer of request is
concerned, in view of the provisions of Section 6(3) and clarification of the Department of Personnel
and Training, request can be transferred to only one public authority. In the instant case two Public
Authorities other than Respondent are concerned. Therefore, request of the Respondent (CPIO) to
the Appellant to approach the Public Authority concerned directly is legally correct. The Appellant
AT-15012010-12.doc may request the Department of Justice and the Personnel & Training for
requisite information / copy of documents."

5. During the hearing, CPIO reiterated that under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, it was for the
applicant for information to file his petition before "the concerned public authority". It is only when
such petitioner has filed the application before the concerned public authority that the provision of
Section 6(3) comes into play. No petitioner is free to file his application under Section 6(3) itself
with the expectation that the public authority before whom he had filed the application regardless of
whether such public authority was concerned with the subject of the queries or not would in any
case transfer his application to the other public authority. It was in this context that they had
advised the appellant to file his RTI-application before the CPIO, Ministry of Justice where,
according to the belief of the CPIO, Department of Legal Affairs, the information was likely to be
held.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1563299/ 1
 Shri T.K. Roy vs Department Of Legal Affairs on 15 January, 2010

6. It was further pointed out on behalf of the respondents that appellant had included in his
RTI-application not one but multiple and diverse subjects. According to the provision of Section 7(1)
of the RTI Act, an applicant was authorized to make only "a request" and not a multiplicity of them.
From that standpoint as well, this RTI-application of the appellant deserved to be rejected.

7. I am in agreement with the submissions of the respondents. Commission in its Full Bench
decision in Ketan Kantilal Modi Vs. Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC); Appeal
No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01280; Date of Decision: 22.09.2009, had held that a requester for
information was expected to file his application before the 'concerned public authority' and not
before any public authority. If the authority before whom an applicant filed his RTI-application was
not the concerned public authority, in that case this latter public authority was not obliged to act
under Section 6(3) of the Act to transfer the request to another public authority. In this case, not
only the CPIO before whom the application was filed, was not the concerned public authority, the
queries were also related to multiple other public authorities. Respondents were, therefore, entirely
within their right to decline to act on the appellant's RTI-application.

8. In Commission's decision in Rajendra Singh Vs. CBI; Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2007/00967;

Date of Decision: 19.06.2009, it was held that the provision of Section 7(1) obligated an applicant to
register in AT-15012010-12.doc his RTI-application only one request or one type of request, which
may have multiple facets. The Act doesn't entitle an applicant to include in his application queries
on myriad subjects and then expect the CPIO to despatch each part of the multiple queries to the
point where the information was known to be or likely to be held.

9. While examined against the touchstones spelt-out by the Commission in its above decisions and
the provisions of the RTI Act, I find that the CPIO and the Appellate Authority have acted entirely
within the provisions of law.

10. As there is no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Authority, it is upheld.

11. Matter disposed of with these directions.

12. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.

( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-15012010-12.doc

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1563299/ 2