Central Information Commission
V. Ramesh Chandra Varma vs Department Of Expenditure on 10 June, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DOEXP/A/2021/620039
V Ramesh Chandra Varma ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Expenditure,
Finance Commission Division,
RTI Cell, Block No. 11, 5th Floor,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003. .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02/05/2022
Date of Decision : 25/05/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08/05/2021
CPIO replied on : 13/05/2021
First appeal filed on : 17/05/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 24/05/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 08.05.2021 seeking the following information regarding 14th FINANCE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS regarding Special Category States:1
1) "Please provide information regarding the recommendations given by the 14th FINANCE COMMISSION to cease Special Category States in India.
2) Please provide information whether the FINANCE COMMISSION currently has restored afresh the class of special category states.
3) Please provide information regarding the currently enjoying class of Special Category States in India today Below Items are for your kind information and consideration a. As per section 7(3) of the RTI Act 2005, In case, there are further fee required to provide the requested information, I request the PIO to inform me of the additional fee amount along with the calculations made to arrive at the amount.
b. As per section 7(8)(iii) and 7(3)(ii) of the RTI Act 2005, I request the PIO to inform me of the particulars of First Appellate Authority."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 13.05.2021 stating as follows:-
"Point No.1: This Division is mandated to release grants to the State Governments as recommended by the successive Finance Commissions during its award period except Devolution of taxes. Presently, the recommendations of the 15th Finance Commission award period 2021-26 are being implemented. 14th Finance Commission has not made any distinction between Special and General Category States in determining norms and recommendations.
Point No.2 & 3: 15th Finance Commission has also not made any recommendation regarding Special Category States. The reports of 14th and 15th Finance Commissions are already available in the Public domain and can be accessed on the website: https://fincomindia.nic.in. However, regarding grant / cease of Special Category Status comes under the purview of the NITI Aayog, New Delhi and they have already replied to you vide their letter No.35/1/2020-FR dated 07/05/2021. This Division does not hold any other information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.05.2021. FAA's order dated 24.05.2021 upheld the reply.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-2
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Mahesh Kumar, Deputy Director (FCD) & CPIO along with Hariom Kumar Vaid present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant narrated the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application to urge that there is some anomaly in what the recommendations of 14th Finance Commission state about cessation of Special Category States in India and the role of NITI Aayog in the matter.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the RTI Application and invited the attention of the bench to his written submissions filed prior to the hearing copy of which was endorsed to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record as well as upon hearing the contentions of the Appellant during the hearing observes that he has not sought for any relief permissible under the RTI Act. He appears to be rather challenging the merits of the factual information provided by the CPIO. In this regard, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act 3 strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, no scope of intervention is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4