First appeal against CIC New Delhi dated 24.01.2017 for Non- Implementation of Section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005

1. First Appeal
1
Date: 24/01/2017
Ref: RTI reply No. CICOM/R/2017/50006 dated
24.01.2017 by CPIO (RTI Cell) CIC New Delhi with
attachment of response by Shri S.P. Beck, JS (Admin)
dated 24.01.2017 under F.No.3/8/2015-CIC/Admin.
From:
Om Prakash Poddar
R/O RZF-893, Netaji Subhas Marg
Raj Nagar Part-2, Palam Colony,
New Delhi-10077
Mob: 9968337815
E-mail: om.poddar@gmail.com
To,
The First Appellate Authority, CIC
Central Information Commission
2nd
Floor, B Wing
August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi-110066
011-26162290
Sub: First Appeal U/S 19 (1) of RTI Act 2005
Sir,
I regret that CPIO (RTI Cell) CIC, New Delhi has
supplied the information unsatisfactorily, so that
either you can give it or else you can order him to
supply the same satisfactorily, or supply the same as

2. First Appeal
2
per the rules under RTI Act-2005. My point wise
averments and arguments are as under:
Requested Information: 1.)Can CIC afford to say that
there is no statutory provisions of Life and Liberty
under RTI Act 2005 as evident from the reply of
DS(CR) CIC dated 28.12.2016?
Requested Information: 2.) Is reply of DS (CR) CIC
dated 02.12.2016 and dated 28.12.2016 not
contradictory to each other?
Supplied Information: 1 & 2.) Central Information
Commission functions as per the provisions of RTI Act
2005 and the RTI Rules 2012.
Argument and reasons for full information:
Section 7 in The Right To Information Act, 2005
7. Disposal of request.—
(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of
section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of
section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be
on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as
expeditiously as possible, and in any case within
thirty days of the receipt of the request, either
provide the information on payment of such fee as may
be prescribed or reject the request for any of the
reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: Provided that
where the information sought for concerns the life or
liberty of a person, the same shall be provided
within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the
request.
(2) If the Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be
fails to give decision on the request for information

3. First Appeal
3
within the period specified under sub-section (1),
the Central Public Information Officer or State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be shall
be deemed to have refused the request.
(3) Where a decision is taken to provide the
information on payment of any further fee
representing the cost of providing the information,
the Central Public Information Officer or State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be shall
send an intimation to the person making the request,
giving—
(a) the details of further fees representing the cost
of providing the information as determined by him,
together with the calculations made to arrive at the
amount in accordance with fee prescribed under
sub-section (1), requesting him to deposit that fees,
and the period intervening between the despatch of
the said intimation and payment of fees shall be
excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of
thirty days referred to in that sub-section;
(b) information concerning his or her right with
respect to review the decision as to the amount of
fees charged or the form of access provided,
including the particulars of the appellate authority,
time limit, process and any other forms.
(4) Where access to the record or a part thereof is
required to be provided under this Act and the person
to whom access is to be provided is sensorily
disabled, the Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be
shall provide assistance to enable access to the
information, including providing such assistance as
may be appropriate for the inspection.
(5) Where access to information is to be provided in
the printed or in any electronic format, the
applicant shall, subject to the provisions of
sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed:
Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section
(1) of section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of
section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall
be charged from the persons who are of below poverty
line as may be determined by the appropriate
Government.

4. First Appeal
4
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(5), the person making request for the information
shall be provided the information free of charge
where a public authority fails to comply with the
time limits specified in sub-section (1).
(7) Before taking any decision under sub-section (1),
the Central Public Information Officer or State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be shall
take into consideration the representation made by a
third party under section 11.
(8) Where a request has been rejected under
sub-section (1), the Central Public Information
Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be shall communicate to the person making
the request,—
(i) the reasons for such rejection;
(ii) the period within which an appeal against such
rejection may be preferred; and
(iii) the particulars of the appellate authority.
(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in
the form in which it is sought unless it would
disproportionately divert the resources of the public
authority or would be detrimental to the safety or
preservation of the record in question.
Reply by DS(CR)CIC dated 02.12.2016, “With reference
to your above said mail, the Appeal diarised vide
diary No.183722 dated 3.11.2016 was examined and it
found that you have not claimed the ground of life
and liberty at any stage i.e RTI application, Ist
appeal or even in IInd appeal. It is out of preview
of Central Registry to acceede to you request”.
Reply by DS(CR)CIC dated 28.12.2016, With reference
to your query the Hon'ble CIC has held that " There
is no statutory provision under the RTI Act,2005 to
prioritize the hearing of second appeal and decide
the same within 48 hours as matter concerning life
and Liberty" For information please.

5. First Appeal
5
The above citation of Act and subsequent reply by
DS(CR) depicts ABSOLUTE MISMATCH and the same depicts
violation of RULE OF LAW.
Further, the applicant has adduced with 24 pages
evidences of DEMONSTRABLY proving the imminent danger
to life and liberty of a Senior Citizen Oxygen
dependent woman through communication between CIC and
the applicant w.e.f 30.11.2016 to 28.12.2016.
Moreover, the applicant has substantiated with the
observation of CIC in the matter of N.N. Kalia vs
University of Delhi, dated 03.09.2009.
The CIC passed following observation about section
7(1), which might help you to understand the
provision better.
The life and liberty provision can be applied only in
cases where there is an imminent danger to the life
and liberty of a person and the non-supply of the
information may either lead to death or grievous
injury to the concerned person. Liberty of a person
is threatened if she or he is going to be
incarcerated or has already been incarcerated and the
disclosure of the information may change that
situation. If the disclosure of the information would
obviate the danger then it may be considered under
the proviso of Section 7(1). The imminent danger has
to be demonstrably proven. The Commission is well
aware of the fact that when a citizen exercises his
or her fundamental right to information, the
information disclosed may assist him or her to lead a
better life. But in all such cases, the proviso of
Section 7(1) cannot be invoked unless imminent danger
to life and liberty can be proven.
Nonetheless, the content of the second appeal is
self-explanatory at page no.02 and para no. 6, which
reads as “another N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process u/s
83 Cr.Pc. has been issued by the same CJM division
against applicant and his Senior Citizen ailing

6. First Appeal
6
mother in another frivolous criminal case no. 5591 of
2013 u/s 498A after the closure of case no. 9P of
2010 and kept it secret since then without the
knowledge of applicant to usurp his property in
Bihar”.
The above citation of PERUSAL OF RECORDS absolutely
violates section 11(ii) “procedure for deciding
appeals” of RTI Rules 2012.
The information supplied is absolutely false. Hence,
true information to be supplied in accordance with
RTI Act 2005 and RTI Rules 2012 with citation.
Requested Information: 3.) What action has been taken
against DS (CR) CIC for non-implementation of
provision of section 7(1) of RTI Act applicable
against second appeal diary no. 183722 dated
03.11.2016 so far?
Supplied Information: 3.) The reply given by the
DS/CR of Central Information Commission was examined
and is in order. Therefore, no action has been
recommended against him.
Argument and reasons for full information:
Arguments with citation under reply no. 1 & 2 to be
read as the argument under reply no.03 which clearly
indicates that the reply by the DS/CR of Central
Information Commission is NOT IN ORDER AT ALL.
Hence, the Apex institution is shielding, protecting
the BAD ELEMENTS of State Apparatus and offending,
harassing, victimizing the common man and senior
citizen oxygen dependent woman.

7. First Appeal
7
The information supplied is absolutely false and
protecting the bad elements of state apparatus.
Hence, true information to be supplied in accordance
with RTI Act 2005 and RTI Rules 2012 with appropriate
punitive action.
DRAWN & FILED BY:
PETITIONER IN PERSON
OM PRAKASH
NEW DELHI:
FILED ON : 24.01.2017