UNACHAL PRADESH TNFORMATTON COMMTSSTON, (AprC) , RUNCHAL PRADESH

Appeal U/S 19(3) of RTr Act, 200s vide No. ApIC-108/2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT OF SHRI GOTO ETE, THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Batem Pertin S/O Dongon Pertin Village Kiyit, PO Mebo, PS , East Siang, A. Pradesh

-VERSUS - The PIO-cum-CJM, , West at Pasighat ResDondent

Date of hearino: 04.09.2019, 09.10.2019, 13.11.2019, 18.12.2019 L2.02.2020, 11.03.2020, Lt.06.2020.

iudgment/order: 13.08.2020.

JUDGMENT/ORDER This is an appeal filed under sub-section (3) of Section-lg of the RTI Act. Brief fact of the case is that the appellant named above Shri Batem Pertin, as a person belonged to the category of below povefty line, on 22.10.2018, filed an RTI application under Form-A along with a xerox copy of his BPL Cedificate before the PIO-cum-CJM, Aalo, ai Pasighat, wherein, seeking various information,s regarding appointments, posting, etc, of the employees/officials posted in the Court/Office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge Senior Division, , Pasighat. Having not received any response from the said pIO-cum-CJM within the prescribed period of 30 days, he filed the First Appeal under sub- section-(l) of Section-l9 of the RTI Act, 2005, before the First Appellate Authority-cum-Additional District Judge, pasighat on 08.01.2019, seeking for an order directing for furnishing of the information sought. The Additional District Judge East Siang District, Pasighat, whereupon, vide his letter Memo No. ADSJ/Psg/2017-tBl70, dated-08.02.2019, informed the appellant to the effect that he was not the First Appellate Authority and that the First Appellate Authority was the District & Session Judge. Thereafter, the appellant, instead of filing the First Appeal before the District & Session Judge, filed the First Appeal on 29.03.2019 U/S 19(1) of the RTI Act. 2005, before the Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission and the same was not entertained by the Registry of the Commission with an advice to the appellant vide letter dated-07,05.2019, among others, to approach the District & Session Judge as the First Appellate Authority for addressing his grievances. Accordingly, the appellant filed a fresh First Appeal before the District & Session Judge, , on 14.06.2019. But the appellant, having not received any response from the First Appellate Authority finally filed Second Appeal before this Commission on 15.07.2019 and the Registry, having receipt of it, registered the same, being APIC No.10B/2019, and processed before the Commission for its hearing and disposal.

Accordingly, this appeal came up for hearing before the Commission for as many as 8(eight) times until the date of this final judgment/order. During the course of hearing the Commission examined two witnesses namely one Shri Osup Dai and another Smty Omang Siram, Shri Hirendra Kashyap presently posted as the District & Session Judqe, Khonsa, being alleged PIO-cum-CJl4 of East Siang District, Pasighat, on his part also, submitted a written statement in detail in his defence on 30.10.2019, wherein, statjng, inter-alia, that there had been no permanent post of OM being posted at Pasighat and that he being posted as CJlvl of West Siang District, Aalo, was only entrusted for holding circuit court at Pasighat. He has further categorically stated that no any such RTI application dated- 22.10.2018 had ever been filed before him as he was not holding circuit court at Pasighat at that point of time. On the date of final hearing of the appeal on 13,08.2020 appellant himself was also heard and examined in peBon through video conferencing during presence of the respective counsels of the pafties and, thereafter, the both learned counsels of the either side have also been heard.

Now, after recording the statements of the available witnesses and also after having considered the statements of the either party including the submissions of the learned counsels of the either side I have drawn the following issues for discussion for arriving at a just decision of this appeal. And, those are as follows:

1. Whether the alleoed PIO-cum-OM had received the RTI application of the apoellant: The appellant in his verbal statement made through video conferencing before the Commission on 13.08.2020 stated that he had sought information in his RTI application only in respect of the offlcials/staffs of the Courvofflce of the CJN'|, Pasighat, but not in respect of those officials/staffs of the office/Court of ClM, Aalo. According to him he personally submitted his RTI application to Shri Osup Dai on 22.10.2018 to be given to the CJl4 and Osup Dai then happened to be Sheristedar of Cjlv| and as well oi DC's office Pasighat. Other than the fact about his personal submission of his RTI application to Shri Osup Dai he has no any further knowledge about his said application and he does not have proof if his said application has been received by the cJM. The above statements of th€ appellant that he had personally submitted his RTI application to Shri Osup Dai is connected with the evidences of Shri Osup Dai who has been examined by the Commission as Witness No.1. It is there in the evidence ot Osup Dai (W1) that on 22.10.2018 he was at DC's Office Pasighat as the Sheristedar of the lYobile Court of ClM, Aalo, which used to function as a lYobile Court in the DCt Court at pasighat and that his signature appearing on the RTI application of Batem pertin makes him believes that he ha; received the RTI application from Batem pertin. Infact, Shri H. Kashyap the alleged PIO, on his part, has no dispute of the fact that he was functioning as a CIM but as a Circuit Court at pasighat. The statement of the aDDellant that he does not have evidence other than his personal submission of his application and so also the statement of Osup Dai (W1) that he does not remember if the CJM was or was not in the f4obile Court at pasiqhat at the time of his receiving the application from Batem pertin are found not controverting or disputing the statement of tvlr. Kashyap (alleged pIO) that no any such RTI application dated-22.10.2018 had ever been filed before him as he was not holding circuit court at paslghat at that point of time. This statement of the alleged plo-cum-Cjlt goes to mean that he did not receive this RTI application of the appellant which is supported by the evidences of Smty Omem Siram who has been examined as Witness No.2 of this appeal. It is there in her evidence that on 22.10.2018 she was workinq as the LDC in the DC's Office, pasighat, and her duty at that time wa; mainly related to trials of cases in the CJl4 Court at pasighat. According to her Shri Osup Dai was then on duel charges as sheristedar of both CJ[4's Court and DC's Court at Pasighat. It is also there in her evidence that while dealing with establishment and correspondence matters she came across some RTI matters for which an RTI file was also opened. The Dak-pad of the CJlvl Court was maintained in a register by the sheristedar from 21.08.2018 to 17.12.2018 which does not contain any such record of receipt of the said RTI application of Shri Batem pertin by her from the Sheristedar and in such absence of which she cannot be said to have received any such application of Batem Pertrn from Shri Osup Dai. She has further stated in her deposition that she did not get the RTI application of Batem pertin anv time on 22.10.2018 to the last date of maintaining the register on 17.12.2018. Witness No.2 while in support of her oral evidence to the said effect produced the Register before the Commission and the same after necessary examination and also after having given opportunity to the counsels of the either party for inspection forthwith returned to her with a direction to produce as and when so required. Such oral and documentarv evidences of the Witness No.2, having not been tn any way disputed oi controverted by any of the parties, remain intact and the same, as such, belie the evidence of the Witness No.l made in his cross-examination that he had given the RTl application of Batem pertin to his assistant (W2) for keeping it in the dak pad to be given to the CJty dunng his visit to the Mobile Court. Having carefully considered the evidences and other available materials on record as discussed aforesaid I do not find anv oral or documentary proof to go to show that the alleged plo had received the RTI application of the appellant and, therefore, I have no escaoe from pIO-cum-CJM concluding that the alleged had not received ihe said application of the appellant, And, accordingly, the alleged plo-cum-CJtvl, who is found to have not received the RTI application of the apoellani cannot be said to have violated sub-section (1) of Section-7 and any other provisions of RTI Act, 2005. This issue, thus, is found going in favour of the alleged PIO.

2. If there had been anv officials/staffs in the CIM Court at Pasiohat about whose information have been souqht in the RTI application of the appellant: The alleged PIO-cum-CJlvl, in paraqraph-6 of his written statement, stated that in East Siang District there was no permanent Cl[4 posted and he was posted as CJlvl of West Siang District and was entrusted to conduct Circuit Court at Pasighat. According to him the then Additional District & Session Judge, having permanent Court at Pasighat, ought to have been the PIO at Pasighat in terms of RTI Rules of the Gauhati High Court but not the CJIY. That is to say, the alleged PIO-cum-CJ!1, having not been holding a permanent post of C.lFl at Pasighat, could not had been the PIO-cum-CJM of East Siang District Pasighat. Infact, the alleged PIO-cum- CJl4 has no denial of the fact that he had conducted cases as Cllvl at Pasighat but only as a Circuit Court. The fact disclosed in the written statement of the alleged PIO-cum-ClM that he, being posted as the Cll4 of West Siang District was entrusted to hold Circuit Court at Pasighat, goes without saying that there had not been any such regular or permanent Court of Cllul being established in East Siang District at Pasighat, This fact about non-existence of regular or permanent CJM Court at Pasighat as disclosed in the written statement of the alleged PIO-cum-CJM, Pasighat, is found supported by the evidences of Witnesses Nos. 1 & 2. lt is there in the evidence of Shri Osup Dai (W-1) that on 22.10.2018 he was at the offlce of the DC's Offlce Pasighat as the Sheristedar of the lvlobile Court of CJlvl, Aalo, which used to function in the DCt Court as Mobile Court at Pasighat. He reiterated in his evidence made in chief that the Shri H. Kashyap (alleged PIO-cum-cJl4) had been the CJl4 of l4obile Court at Pasighat at the relevant Doint of time. It is further there in his evidence made in cross that there was not a single staff of Mobile Court of the CJl4 and he was asked by the DC to look after the CIM'S l4obile Court at Pasighat. That was how he was doing additional charge of CJl.4's Court while doing his reqular duty as Sheristedar of the DC's Court. Smty Omang Siram (W2) stated in her evidence that on 22.10,2018 she was working as LDC in the DC's Office Pasighat and at that time her dutv was mainlv related to trials of cases in the Cll4's Court at Pasighat. It is further there in her evidence that at that point of time Osup Dai was also working as Sheristedar of the CJl4's court apart from his duty at DC's Court at Pasighat. According to her, all Daks received in respect ol the office of the CJIY'S Court had been maintained by the Sheristedar in a register from 21.08.2018 until the last date of maintaining the register on 17.12.2018. Witness No.2 has, infact, not specifically disclosed if the cjl4's Court conducting trials in the Dc's Court at Pasighat had been a Clrcuit court being held by the cl[4 of West Siang District or not. However, the fact disclosed in her evidence that she herself and Shri Osup Dai, being office staffs of Dc's Office Pasighat, had been doing duties in the offlce of the C.1l'4 at DC's court at Pasighat give rise to a circumstance apparently clear thal the alleged PIO-cum-CJlv'l had been holding a temporary or Circuit Court of CJl4 in the DC's Court at Pasiqhat with the assistance of the office staffs of the DC's Office Pasighat and the same, as such, clearly establish the fact that there had not been any such employees or staffs of the CJN4,S Coun being appointed or posted or existed at pasighat at the time of fling of RTI application of the appellant in question. The circumstances established in the evidences of both Wtnesses 1 & 2 as aforesaid as to such absence of regular or permanent Court of CJM including to such absence or non- existence of employees and staffu of CJIU Court at pasighat are found nor inconsistent with the statement of the alleged plo-cum-CJ14 that there hao not been any regular or permanent post of CJM being posted at pasighat at the relevant point of time. It is now worthy of mention herein that other than the fact about the appellant's having seen the Cll,4,s Court functioninE at Pasighat he has no any dispute of the fact that the Ol4,s Court which h; had seen functioning had admittedly been functioning as such Court but nol as a regutar or permanent CJM Court at pasighat, Having carefully considered the evidences and other available materials on record as discussed aforesaid I do not find any reason for disbelievinq the fact as disclosed in the written statement of the alleged plo that there had not been any permanent post of CJlvl belng posted at pasighat at the time filinq of the RTI application in question on 22.10.2018. And since there had noi been any regular or permanent post of CJM being created or posted in East Siang District at Pasighat no any such record of appointment or posting, etc, of any such supporting offlcial or staff of the CIM Court at pasiohat as sought for by the appellant in his said application under Form--A can reasonably be expected as a human possibility. And, therefore, I have arrived at a conclusion that there had been no any such employee or staff of_Cjl4's Court being appointed or posted or else existed at pasiqhat at the time of filing of the said RTI application. This issue is also, thus, found going in favour of the alleged PIO.

3. If this appeal is maintainable under the law: As per the available records the appellant submitted his RTt application on 22.10.2018 and, accordingly, had he filed his RTI application under Form-A before a propei or competent Public Authority, he would have a right of appeal before the Fjrst Appellate Authority for a period of 30 days from the first day of expiry of appeal period, i,e, from 23.11.2018 to 22.12.2018. But he flled his First Appeal before a wrong forum on 08.01.2019, i.e, before the Addl. District Judge and that too after expiry of 15(fifteen) days from the last date of the appeal period which expired on 22.12.2019 and the same had been so filed without any explanation of delays of such fifteen days. And. had he approached the proper or competent officer of the First Appellate Authority under sub-section ( I ) of Section-19 of the RTI Act, he would have a right of appeal against such First Appellate Authority before the Second App;llate Authority for a period of 90 days from 23.12.2018 to 25.03.2019 but he filed the Second Appeal before the Commission on 15.07.2019 after an exDirv of 20 days from the last date of period of appeal which had expired'on 25.06,2019. Such repeated filings of appeals after expiry of statutory period of appeals as provided under the Act and that too without Drooer explanation of delays are not maintainable under the law on qrounds of iaw of limitation, in as much as, the same are found being alrea;y time barred under the Act. S€condly; any officer of the appropri;te government, who has been designated by such government under the RTI Act as public Information Officer and any other officer authorized bV such public Information Omcer are bound under the law as provided in the Drovisions of Section-7 of the RTI Act to provide information to the pe6on seekino information U/S 6 of the Act. But in the present case the appellant hai completely failed to prove the fact that alleged plo-cum-Cllvl had been the Officer duly appointed or designated under the Act as the pIO of the CJt4,s Court at Pasighat. Thirdly; under the Act the pIO is bound under the law to provide only such information to the information seeker which is available with him. But in the present case those officials or the staffs, of whose records,of their selection process, appointments, postings, etc, have been sought for by the appellant in his RTI application dated_2r.10.2018, had not been appointed or posted or existed at pasighat at the time of fili;g of this said Therefore, .application. seeking of such information by the a;pellant which are non-existed at the time of filing of his application is not tenable under the Act or under any other Act having force of law, in as much as, the.same.is im-performable or beyond the reach of human possibility. In the light of all above discussions I have no hesitation in hotdjng that thi; appeal is not maintainable under the law and this issue, as suih, is also iound going in favour of the alleged pIO-cum-cJM,

In view of discussions on all issues aforesaid I find this appeal not maintainable under the law and, as such, is found tijOte for dismissal/rejection, And, accordingly, the appeal is rejected.

. Judgment/ lrder pronounced in the presence and hearing of the parties on this 13m day of August'2020. Each copy of this judgment/order be furnished to the parties.

Given under my hand and seal of this Courv Commission on this 136 day of August'2020.

sd/- (GOrO ETE) State Information Commissioner Arunachal Pradesh Information, Itanagar

6 Memo.No.APIC-t08l2}l9l Q0?) Dated ltanagar, tne.lJ..... August, 2020. Copy to: 1. Shri Batem Pertin, S/o Donggong peftin, Kiyit Village, p.O Mebo and P.S Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal pradesh for information and necessary action please. 2. Public Information Officer (pIO), Shri H. Kashyap, Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge, West Siang District, Aalo at pasighat, Arunachal pradesh for information and necessary action please. 3. First Appellate Authority (FAA), District and Season Judge (D&SJ) Tezu, , Arunachal pradesh for information and necessary action please. 4. The Comouter €olease. Operator for uploading on the Website of ApIC, 5. bffice copy.