[Order]. - This writ petition seeks to assail that part of an order dated 7-9-2012, passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) whereby, a direction has been issued to the petitioner/Ministry of Finance to appoint one CPIO for the Ministry of Finance or in the alternative to nominate any one of the CPIOs, who are presently functioning, as such, in the various departments under the Ministry of Finance as the CPIO for the Ministry of Finance. In other words, the purport of the direction issued is that the Ministry of Finance should have in place only one CPIO notwithstanding the fact that it has several departments functioning within its fold.
2. This order came to be passed in the background of the fact that, the respondent evidently had filed an application with the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, to seek information with regard to a newspaper item which got published in the Hindustan Times, on 16-3-2010, depicting therein, that the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, was presented with a garland made of thousand rupee currency notes.
3. Apparently, this application was returned on the ground that there was no CPIO, appointed for the Ministry of Finance.
4. It is not in dispute before me, as noticed in the first order of this court that the information sought has already been supplied to the respondent. What is presently troubling the petitioner before me is the direction, to which reference has been made by me, hereinabove.
5. Ms. Ritika, who appears for the petitioner submits that, the Ministry of Finance as per the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules framed under clause (3) of Article 77 of the Constitution of India is bifurcated into five (5) departments. These being :
Department of Economic Affairs; Department of Expenditure; Department of Revenue; Department of Disinvestment; and Department of Financial Services.
6. The learned counsel submits that Ministry of Finance has a Nodal Officer, who receives all RTI applications, which are thereafter marked to the CPIO of the concerned department for being processed in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short RTI Act).
7. It is the contention of the petitioner that, the CIC, had no jurisdiction to issue a direction of kind which has been issued and assailed in the writ petition.
8. Mr. Sachdeva on the other hand says that under the provisions of Section 5(1) read with Section 19(8)(a)(ii) and (iv) along with Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, the CIC has necessary power to issue such like directions.
9. It is Mr. Sachdeva’s submission that the CIC has been invested with the power to administer the provisions of the RTI Act and therefore, in order to facilitate the receipt of information by a querist such a direction was issued.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my view, present petition can be disposed of with the following directions :-
(i) Ministry of Finance, Government of India will duly publicise the name of the Nodal Officer, who will receive RTI applications.
(ii) The Nodal Officer on receipt of any RTI application will process the same to ascertain as to the department to which the RTI application pertains.
(iii) On completion of this exercise, the application received by the Nodal Officer will be marked to the CPIO of the concerned department.
(iv) In case the information pertains to more than one department, photocopies of the information would be supplied to CPIOs of all such departments so that there is no delay in receipt of information by the querist.
(v) The Nodal Officer on receipt of the information and on processing the same, as indicated above, will immediately write to the querist, indicating to him, the CPIO of the concerned department to whom his application is marked. The return communication of the Nodal Officer shall, set out, the name, address and telephone number of the said CPIO, to facilitate exchange of future communication between the two, if found necessary.
(vi) Needless to say, if any application is preferred by a querist, which does not indicate the name of the concerned CPIO, these will be entertained in the first instance by the Nodal Officer and thereafter dealt with, in accordance with the directions, issued hereinabove.
11. The impugned order of the CIC is thus supplanted with the directions issued by this court.
12. Mr. Sachdeva says that the directions will meet the concerns of the respondent herein.
13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Comments