Central Information Commission
Tharun Kumar vs Directorate General Of Shipping Dg(S) on 8 August, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसचू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DGOSP/C/2021/658045
CIC/DGOSP/A/2022/613283
Tharun Kumar ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
...अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Directorate General of Shipping,
Mumbai, RTI Cell, Beta Building,
9th Floor, I-Think Techno Campus,
Kunjur Village Road, Kanjur Marg
(East), Mumbai - 400042, Maharashtra. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04/08/2022
Date of Decision : 04/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note- The above mentioned Complaint/Appeal have been clubbed together for
decision as these are based on same RTI Application.
Relevant facts emerging from complaint/Appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16/09/2021 & 16/09/2021
CPIO replied on : 14/10/2021 & 14/10/2021
First appeal filed on : NIL & 02/11/2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record & 18/01/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
1The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.09.2021 seeking the following information;
1. Is it true that all wings of the Directorate General of shipping (DGS) situated across the country were fully functioning, keeping the offices open, during the COVID-19 lockdown announced by the Government effective from March, 2020 to September, 2021? please provide the details of offices functioned as above, date-wise and office-wise.
2. Details of the staff and officers of DGS throughout the country whom got affected due to COVID- 19 infection and the number of persons recovered, office-wise .
3. List of MTIs under DGS that were functioning during Feb, 2020.
4. List of MTIs, state-wise, asked to be kept open during the lockdown period (from March, 2020 to Sept, 2021) for the purpose of inspection/verification or for any other reasons by any of the wings of DGS, including offices of MMD or ROs.
5. List of MTIs due for annual inspection during the lockdown period (from March, 2020 to Sept, 2021).
6. Whether any request was received from MTIs seeking exemption or extension of time for completion of inspection in view of the COVID- 19 lockdown situation during above lockdown period. If so, the details thereof MTI-wise & action taken on such requests with copies of all pages of notes sheets (from Dealing Assistant level onwards) may be provided.
7. Details of policy or criteria for approving visit to an MTI during the lockdown period (from March 2020 to Sep, 2021) for inspection/verification or any other reasons. Copies of all pages of note sheets (from Dealing Assistant level onwards) on which such a decision was proposed, discussed and taken by the DGS may be provided.
8. List of MTIs directed to visit by the MMD or any other ROs for the purpose of inspection/verification during the above lockdown period& the copies of such approvals given, stating reasons and criteria applied & the copies of relevant note sheets (from Dealing Assistant level onwards) may be provided.2
9. Details of the verifications, protocol & procedure required to be followed before taking action on complaints received against MTIs from:
a. Persons duly disclosing identity.
b. Unanimous complainants.
c. Pseudonymous complainants.
10. List of complaints/grievances received against MTIs during the lockdown period (from March, 2020 to Sept, 2021) and details of action as above, taken thereof, MTI-wise be provided.
The CPIO furnished a point wise detailed reply to the complainant/appellant on 14.10.2021.
Being dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, the complainant/ appellant filed a First Appeal dated 2.11.2021 in case no. CIC/DGOSP/A/2022/613283. FAA's order dated 08.01.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant/appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint/Second appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant/ Appellant: Represented by Advocate K Mohanan present through video-conference.
Respondent: Rajesh Mhatre, Dy. Manager & CPIO present through video- conference.
The Advocate of the Complainant/Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that complete desired information including the total number of MTI Institutes, in response to points no. 4-10 of RTI Application has not been provided to him till date.
The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant information has already been provided to the Complainant/Appellant. However, with regards to the details of completion of annual inspection reports of the Institutes during the COVID lockdown and the criteria thereof of the visits; he explained that such list in consolidated form is not maintained by their office. He further apprised the Commission that their office is coming out with a MIS module wherein substantial information/reports will be made public including the records of information sought for and that the process of updating/ revamping their 3 website is under process which would be completed within six to seven months. He further added that as on today , there are a total of 122 approved Institutes, however, from 16.3.2020 the Institutes stopped their physical classes owing to Covid situation and as and when these Institutes sent proposals for virtual classes ; the same was granted by the competent authority in the DGS. Since, approvals to these Institutes were not granted at the same time , but only when these Institutes approached the DGS; hence records for such approvals was not maintained by them in the consolidated fashion .
Decision The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing , as it adequately suffices the enormous level of information sought by the Complainant/ Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Adverting to the insistence of the Complainant/Appellant's advocate regarding maintenance or availability of records of information sought for, it shall be noted that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. In this regard, his attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority.
Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) 4 However, upon insistence of the Complainant/Appellant's advocate insistence and in the spirit of RTI Act, the CPIO is directed to revisit the contents of information sought for at points no. 4 to 10 of RTI Application and provide a revised point wise reply along with relevant available information to the Complainant/ Appellant. The said reply and information should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Complainant/ Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Lastly, it will be in the best interest of the Respondent Public Authority to expedite the viability of maintaining their website pertaining to various policy matters and data / statistics so that the relevant information can be placed in the public domain in keeping with the letter and spirit of suo motu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed for merely seeking clarifications and not any specific record. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO, DGOS is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The Complaint/ Appeal are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 5