Central Information Commission
Shri S. C. Agrawal vs Lok Sabha Sectt. on 1 October, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00440 dated 5.5.2008
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01621 dated 17.2.2007
& Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00425 dated 5.3.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18 & 19
Appellant/Complainant - Shri S. C. Agrawal
Respondent public authority - Lok Sabha Sectt.
Facts:
These are three petitions from Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal of Dariba, Delhi, comprised of two appeals and a complaint seeking information from the Lok Sabha Sectt.
FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2007/01621 By a request of 20.4.2007 Shri Agarwal sought the following information from Shri P. K. Grover, CPIO, Lok Sabha Sectt.:
"Kindly arrange to provide me information under 'Right to Information Act' about full details of cases pending before the Ethics Committee of Lok Sabha including the date of first information to Lok Sabha Secretariat about these cases. Please also inform cases having decided by the Ethics Committee of the fourteenth Lok Sabha mentioning action taken and decision.
Please also make available information given by Lok Sabha member Shri Dharmendra about his wife to the Lok Sabha Secretariat. Please also provide information given to Rajya Sabha Secretariat by Rajya Sabha Member Smt. Hema Malini about her husband."
To this he received a response from Ms. Neera Singh, Dy. Secretary, Lok Sabha Sectt. Of 22.5.07 attaching the following information:
(i) Committee on Ethics in Lok Sabha was constituted by Hon'ble Speaker on 16th May, 2000 consisting of 15 members. At present, there is no case pending before the Committee.1
(ii) During 14th Lok Sabha, the Committee gave/ presented two Reports. First report regarding incorporation in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, the rules regarding constitution of the Committee on Ethics, its functions and procedure to be followed by the Committee and procedure for making ethics complaints, was presented to the Speaker, Lok Sabha on 24th August 2006 and laid on the table of Lok Sabha on 25th August 2006. A copy of the Report was, thereafter, sent to Rules Committee for finally framing the rules and getting them adopted by the House so that they could finally get incorporated in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha.
Second Report regarding alleged misuse of car park label by Shri Vijayendra Pal Singh, MP was also presented to the Speaker, Lok Sabha on 24th August 2006 was laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 25th August 2006. Thereafter, the matter was treated as closed.
(iii) This query is vague. It is not clear which information about Shri Dharmendra, MP's wife has been sought."
Upon this appellant Shri Agrawal moved his first appeal before Shri S. K. Sharma, Addl. Secretary, Lok Sabha with a specific query regarding information sought on Shri Dharmender's wife. First Appellate Authority Shri S. K. Sharma in his order of 26.6.07 stated as follows:
"You had sought in your original application among other things "the information given by Shri Dharmendra, MP about his wife to the Lok Sabha Secretariat". The point was not specific as to the nature of information desired by you. Now that the query is specific, this is to inform you that as per travel claims made by the Member his wife's name as given is "Prakash Deol".
As regards your second point about the action taken against Shri Vijendra Pal Singh, MP for misuse of car-park label, this Secretariat vide letter of even number dated 22.05.2007 had intimated you that the matter has been treated as closed and as such no action was taken. In your appeal you have raised a fresh point seeking a copy of the findings of the Ethics Committee in regard to this case. Although fresh points will require separate application along with requisite fee under the RTI Act, a copy of the relevant pages of the report of the Committee consisting of four pages is enclosed herewith free of cost."
2This was followed by a further request of 2.7.'07 from Shri Agrawal to First Appellate Authority Shri S. K. Sharma, Addl. Secretary as follows:
"I request your Honour to kindly co-ordinate with Rajya Sabha Secretariat to reveal the correct information about wife of Shri Dharmendra, whether it is 'Prakash Deol' or 'Hema Malini'."
He then received a letter from Shri Deepak Goyal, Director and CPIO Rajya Sabha Sectt. Dated 25.7.07 informing him as follows:
"As per Rajya Sabha records, the spouse of Smt. Hema Malini, MP, Rajya Sabha, is Shri Dharmender Deol. This information is based on the information provided by the MP in her bio-data."
Appellant's prayer before us is as below:
"Replies, by different Secretariats of the two wings of the Parliament namely Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha to a single RTI petition should be co-related with each other without any contradiction. I should be informed about correct information about wife of Honourable Lok Sabha member Shri Dharmendra weather it is Smt. Prakash Deol or Smt. Hema Malini. Both the Secretariats may kindly be directed to update their websites with complete and correct information about Honourable members of the two Houses."
In this case, however, the initial application of 20.4.07 was responded to only on 22.5.07 making it overdue by 3 days.
FILE NOS. CIC/WB/A/2008/00425 AND CIC/WB/C/2008/00440 These two appeals are inter related in that the request on which information had been sought is similar, although the public authorities from whom sought are different. In the RTI request of 19.12.07 in File No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00440, appellant Shri Agarwal has sought the following information from Shri A. Balram, US & CPIO, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension:
"Kindly arrange to inform about action taken (along with criminal complaint) of those government employees who are availing LTC or other benefits are found taking other persons by impersonating them as their spouse/ children on government provided travel 3 documents and travel tickets? What is the punishment for such offence in the Indian Penal Code?
Is Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions is aware of a Lok Sabha member Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi (RJD) misusing travel pass of his wife for another woman traveling with him, an activity which is not immunized for the act not being done during/ inside proceedings of the House? If yes, what action (other than by Lok Sabha) has been taken against the guilty Parliamentarian under normal law of land? If not, will Union Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions seek details about such episodes from Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Secretariat for initiating action?
Please attach file-notings on movement of this RTI petition. In case queries/ action relate to some other public authority, kindly transfer this RTI petition to the CPIO there u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act."
Similarly, in the request of 26.12.07 the information sought by appellant from Shri P.K. Grover, CPIO, Lok Sabha Sectt. is as follows:
"Kindly arrange to inform if Lok Sabha Secretariat informed relevant authorities under normal law of land about Lok Sabha member Shri Rajesh Manjhi having been discovered taking another woman as hi wife on an official tour and by also furnishing a false affidavit at the Lok Sabha enquiry-committee set for the purpose? Or this act of the parliamentarian been taken as immunized from normal law of land? Please attach file-notings. In case query relates to some other public authority, kindly arrange to transfer this RTI petition to CPIO there u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act."
The application of 19.12.07 was, however transferred to the Lok Sabha Sectt. on 15.1.08. The difference between the two applications is only that whereas in the application to the Lok Sabha Sectt., the information sought concerns the action taken by Lok Sabha Sectt. regarding such cases, whereas the application to the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension is more general in seeking information on application of "normal law" regarding Govt. employees, with specific reference to MP Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi, RJD. In both cases, however, the responses received by appellant Shri Agrawal were from the Lok Sabha Sectt. only. Finally disposing of both appeals in one order of 20.2.08 Shri S. K. Sharma, Addl. Secretary and Appellate Authority, Lok Sabha 4 Sectt. referred to the response of 28.1.08 to the original request which reads as follows:
"After the 1st Report of the Enquiry Committee relating to Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi, MP's case was laid on the Table, a motion was moved on 30th August 2007 by the leader of the House that; (i) Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi may be suspended from the membership of the House for thirty sittings, and (ii he may be restrained from taking his spouse or companion on official tours till the conclusion of the Fourteenth Lok Sabha. The motion was adopted by the House. All the consequential actions were taken by Lok Sabha Secretariat by issuing a Circular (copy enclosed) to all concerned Branches of the Secretariat for taking necessary action on their part. Apart from this, there was no requirement under the Rules to inform any public authority of any further action in the matter and thee does not arise any question of providing file noting of the case. Moreover, it is not clear what is meant by saying 'information being made by relevant authorities under normal law of land'. Further the member did not file any false affidavit."
However, Appellate Authority has elaborated on this with the following:
"As regards the Privileges of Parliament, the concerned Division has informed that Privileges of Parliament are available to members to discharge their parliamentary duties. Members of Parliament do not enjoy any immunity insofar as application of criminal laws of the land is concerned.
There are no file notings relevant to the above points which may be provided to you."
In File No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00440, however, there is a further order in first appeal from Shri P. Prabhakaran, Dy. Secretary and Appellate Authority, DoPT of 14.3.08 in which he has held as follows:
"Apart from the Lok Sabha Sectt., the matter could concern the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and the Ministry of Home Affairs. As such, the appeal together with copies of all earlier correspondences, are transferred to them for making available information with which they may be concerned in this matter."
The appeal was heard on 1.10.08. The following are present:
Appellant Sh. Subhash Chandra Agrawal 5 Respondents Sh. P. Prabhakaran, DS, DoPT Sh. K. L. Arora, DS, L.S.Sectt.
Sh. Harish Chander, DS-II, L.S.Sectt.
Sh. Kishan Chand, DS-II Sh. Ashok Sajwan, Dy. Secy.-II Sh. Kunal Bhardwaj, Ex. Asstt.
Sh. Sebastian Mathew, J.D.-II Shri K. L. Arora, Dy. Secretary, LSS submitted that all information held by his Sectt., as sought by appellant has been provided. However, it was pointed out by appellant Shri Agrawal that in the request of 26.12.07 addressed to the CPIO Lok Sabha Sectt., the information sought in the very first instance by him was whether the Lok Sabha Sectt. informed relevant offices under the normal law about the transgression of Shri Rajesh Kumar Manjhi. It was clarified by Shri Harish Chander, D.S., Lok Sabha that the action taken by the Lok Sabha Sectt. In this case of which the complete information has been provided to appellant Shri Agarwal was not on its own, but on the initiative of Smt. Manjhi, wife of MP Shri Manjhi. The Lok Sabha Sectt., therefore, did not pass this information on to any other authority nor is it so required to do. Such action is for a complainant to take.
DECISION NOTICE With the above statement of DS, LSS, clearly all the information sought by appellant Shri Agarwal from the Lok Sabha Sectt. is now complete. Clearly, there is no contradiction regarding names of spouses between the answers from the LSS and the RSS, since these concern two different MPs and information provided by each, which is all that can be disclosed under the right to information u/s 2(j). Appellant has pleaded that his request should be conveyed to the concerned MPs. This request may be noted by CPIOs. However, this appeal in File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01621is now closed 6 However, with regard to the complaint No CIC/WB/C/2008/00440 appellant Shri Agrawal has still not received an answer with regard to his general question comprised in the application of 19.12.07, addressed to the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, the CPIO & Dy. Secretary in Home Ministry Shri Abhijeet Dey, who have been summoned to appear before us in this hearing, has failed to do so. He will now supply the information sought to appellant Shri Agarwal within ten working days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice.
Shri Abhijeet Day, CPIO will besides the above show cause as to why he should not be penalized @ Rs. 250/- per day from the date when the information sought had been referred to him by the DoPT i.e. 14.3.08 till such time as the information is actually supplied, not exceeding Rs. 25,000/-. He will do this either in writing by 10.10.2008 or by personal appearance before us on 16.10.2008 at 10.00 a.m. All three appeals are disposed of accordingly. Announced in the hearing.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 1.10.2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 1.10.2008 7