केन्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गगं नाथ मागग, मनु नरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई दिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2021/625152 Shri Neeraj Sharma … अपीलकता/ग Appellant VERSUS/बनाम PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs …प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 04.07.2022, 25.02.2025 Date of Decision : 08.07.2022, 04.06.2025 Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 20.01.2021 PIO replied on : - -

First Appeal filed on : 24.03.2021 First Appellate Order on : - -

2^ndAppeal/complaint received on : 20.06.2021 Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.01.2021 seeking information on the following points:-

2.1 “Please provide the details of Central public information officers and First Appellate Authority for the public authority "Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra" created with notification CG-DL-E-05022020-215935 dated 5 February 2020 by Govt. of India. According to RTI section 5 of RTI act CPIO &

FAA should be appointed within 100 days.

2.2 Please also update the details of Central public information officers and First Appellate Authority for the public authority "Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra" on the website https://srjbtkshetra.org.”

Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.03.2021 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 30.06.2022 has been received from the CPIO/DS(Arms & NI/Ayodhya) reiterating aforementioned PIO’s reply. The Appellant had filed an online First Appeal dated 24.02.2021 which had also been decided by FAA’s order dated 08.03.2021 upholding the PIO’s reply and stating that: CPIO is bound to provide only that information which is available with him. It is important to note that only such information can be supplied under the Act which is available and existing and in held by the public authority or is held under the control of the public authority. The Public information officer in not supposed to create information or to do research on behalf of any citizen.

Records of the case reveal that the instant case with three other connected cases had been heard by the Bench of the erstwhile Chief Information Commission on

04.07.2022, and decided as under:

“ 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 because though information sought by the Applicant has not been provided to him, none of the provisions of the RTI Act has been cited for the tacit denial. Therefore, the reply sent by the PIO is found untenable in law.

Under the circumstances, the Commission directs Shri Harish Kumar Wadhwa, CPIO and Dy Secretary, Arms and NI/ Ayodhya, M/o Home Affairs to re-examine the RTI application and provide a revised point wise response strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Applicant 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. It is made clear that non-compliance of these directions shall attract penal action, as per law.

The aforementioned cases are disposed off accordingly.”

In compliance of the aforementioned directions of the Commission, the PIO, JKL Division/Ayodhya Section, MHA sent a communication dated 28.07.2022 to the Appellant stating as under:

(1) The information sought by you is not held in this office.

(2) Further, section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005 defines "Public Authority" as any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted:-

(a) by or under the Constitution;

(b) by any other law made by P