HC junks plea against CIC order denying info on PM Cares Fund

The petitioner, Nitin Mittoo, had moved the high court against the order dated February 14, 2022, whereby his second appeal instituted under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, was disposed of by the CIC, New Delhi.

Mittoo had submitted an application dated June 7, 2020, to the office of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) seeking certain details regarding PM Cares Fund.

In reply the CPIO, vide letter dated June 15, 2020, informed him that “Cares Fund is not a public authority under the ambit of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, relevant information in respect of PM Cares Fund may be seen on the website (pmcares.gov.in).

Aggrieved at this response, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was disposed of by the first appellate authority. Dissatisfied with the first appellate authority order, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the CIC which was again disposed of.

Mittoo thus moved the high court contending that the impugned order passed by the CIC is not legally sustainable.
After hearing the plea, the high court said that the petitioner had submitted an application on June 7, 2020, to the office of CPIO, which is situated in New Delhi. The office of the first appellate authority is also located in New Delhi.

The CIC, which had passed the impugned order, is also based in New Delhi.

Thus, none of the above three authorities is/are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
In such a scenario, mere receipt of the impugned order by the petitioner at Phagwara cannot be construed as giving rise to cause of action either wholly or in part for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in controversy by this court.

Dismissing the petition, the bench held that the instant plea cannot be entertained as these authorities
do not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the high court.