Central Information Commission
Lalit Kumar Jain vs Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare on 15 May, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/CDLKO/A/2017/182875-BJ+
CIC/CDSCH/A/2017/182771-BJ+
CIC/CDTTM/A/2017/184337-BJ+
CIC/MH&FW/A/2017/184359-BJ
Mr. Lalit Kumar Jain
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
Central Drugs Laboratory
3, KYD Street, Kolkata - 700016
2. CPIO
Sr. Scientific Officer, Grade I
M/o Health & Family Welfare
Central Drugs Standard Control Organization
Central Drugs Testing Laboratory
NABL Accreditated Laboratory, G. M. S. D. Campus No. 37
Naval Hospital Road, Periamet
Chennai - 600003
3. CPIO
Director I/C, CDTL, Central Drugs Testing Laboratory
NABL Accredited Laboratory, CDSCO Bhawan
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
Directorate General of Health Services
Beside A P T. B Demonstration & Training Centre
S. R. Nagar, Hyderabad - 500038
4. CPIO
Dy. Director, Admn. (D), Drugs Section
Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation
Dte. General of Health Services, FDA Bhawan
Kotla Road, New Delhi - 110002
Page 1 of 11
5. CPIO
Dy. Director, Admn., RTI Section
Directorate General of Health Services
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110108
6. CPIO & Director
Regional Drugs Testing Laboratory
Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation
Directorate General of Health Services
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
Sector - 39 - C, Chandigarh - 160036
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.05.2019
Date of Decision : 15.05.2019
ORDER
RTI -1 File No. CIC/CDLKO/A/2017/182875-BJ Date of RTI application 28.08.2017 CPIO's response 26.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal 16.10.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 17.11.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 13.12.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the Flow Charts, Standard Operating procedures, Validation Plan, IQ, OQ, PQ, followed by CDTL, Kolkata to analyse each & every sample of Drugs received by it for testing as per pharmacopeias and as per label details, and other related issues.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 26.09.2017 rejected the application stating that the queries raised in the application was vague and not specific. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 17.11.2017 while referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anothers Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & others, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/CDSCH/A/2017/182771-BJ
Date of RTI application 28.08.2017
CPIO's response 25.09.2017
Date of the First Appeal 30.10.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 13.12.2017
Page 2 of 11
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the Flow Charts, Standard Operating procedures, Validation Plan, IQ, OQ, PQ, followed by CDTL, Chennai to analyse each & every sample of Drugs received by it for testing as per pharmacopeias and as per label details, and other related issues.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 25.09.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. However, the First Appellate Authority had responded the First Appeal on 31.10.2017.
RTI - 3 File No. CIC/CDTTM/A/2017/184337-BJ Date of RTI application 28.08.2017 CPIO's response 10.10.2017 Date of the First Appeal 16.10.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.12.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the Flow Charts, Standard Operating procedures, Validation Plan, IQ, OQ, PQ, followed by CDTL, Hyderabad to analyse each & every sample of Drugs received by it for testing as per pharmacopeias and as per label details, and other related issues.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 10.10.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. However, the First Appellate Authority had responded the First Appeal on 17.11.2017.
RTI - 4 File No. CIC/MH&FW/A/2017/184359-BJ Date of RTI application 28.08.2017 CPIO's response 25.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal 30.10.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 27.11.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 21.12.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the Flow Charts, Standard Operating procedures, Validation Plan, IQ, OQ, PQ, followed by RDTL, Chandigarh to analyse each & every sample of Drugs received by it for testing as per pharmacopeias and as per label details, and other related issues.Page 3 of 11
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 25.09.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 27.11.2017, enclosed the revised reply of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Lalit Kumar Jain;
Respondent: Mr. Jayant Kumar, CPIO & DDC, (I), New Delhi and Mr. D. Vijay, Drugs Inspector, New Delhi in person; and Mr. Anjan Pal, SSO, Microbiology, Kolkata, Dr. Dipak Shivaji Harel, CPIO, Kolkata, Dr. R. K. Rishi, CPIO, Kolkata, Ms. C. Vijayalakshmi, Sr. Scientific Officer Gr. I & CPIO, Chennai, Dr. N. Murugesan, Dir. & FAA, CDTL, Chennai holding additional charge as CPIO at CDTL, Hyderabad and Dr. R. A. Singh, Dir. & CPIO, Chandigarh through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the complete and satisfactory information had not been received by him, till date. It was further articulated that various pharmacopoeias laid down the standards of analysis of a particular medicines but SOPs/Flow Charts, Validations, Impurities, Reference Standards, Stability data and operational records, etc. were the instructions to ensure the accuracy and correctness under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. Furthermore, it was submitted that the SOPs and other information were denied by the Respondents citing large and voluminous information in contravention to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. He further suggested that all these information should be suo-motu disclosed in the larger public interest as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. While referring to the response given by the Office of the Regional Drugs Testing Laboratory, Guwahati in a similar subject-matter, it was submitted that the other Respondents had denied similar information. In its reply, the Respondents present at the hearing clarified that the available information had already been supplied to the Appellant and only large and voluminous information had been denied on account of gathering of data with meager human resources. It was articulated that approximately 250 plus instruments were available that carried information of varying nature. The SOPs for each of these instruments was different and therefore generic information was already provided to the Appellant and in case any specific queries were raised, the same could be addressed appropriately. Inspection was also being offered by the Respondents, but the Appellant did not turn up. On being queried by the Commission, whether he would like to inspect the voluminous documents as solicited in the RTI applications, the Appellant cited his physical inability. It was further articulated that the Laboratory is analyzing more than 5000 samples per year and the Appellant had asked for the flow charts, standard operating procedures and other validation procedures of each and every sample which was large and voluminous as also not specific in nature disclosure of which would disproportionally divert the resources of the public authority. As regards the information impressed upon by the Appellant pertaining to Guwahati, the Respondent stated that the contextual framework of the queries and the reply received thereto needs to be examined and analyzed rather than giving a spontaneous reply. The Respondents further relied on their written submissions.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 06.05.2019 (Appeal No. CIC/CDLKO/A/2017/182875-BJ) wherein while narrating a detailed point-wise response to the queries raised in the RTI application, it was submitted that the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata is National Statutory Laboratory of the Government of India for quality Page 4 of 11 control of Drugs and Cosmetic and is established under Indian Drug & Cosmetic Act, 1940. Moreover, it is the oldest quality control laboratory of the Drugs Control Authorities in India. Furthermore, the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata is also National Appellate Laboratory of the Government of India. Each and every process right from the manner of the receipt of drug samples from State/Central Drug Inspector and also from Hon'ble Court throughout the Country has been stipulated under the Drug & Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Drug & Cosmetic Rules, 1945. Even various Forms have been specified under Drug & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Drug Cosmetic Rules, 1945 to issue test/analysis result to the concerned authority under different circumstances. It was further informed that all the details of drug samples declared not of standard quality were displayed month-wise in CDSCO's website (www.cdsco.gov.in) under caption "Drug Alerts" apart from disclosing pharmaceutical dosage form. It was also mentioned in which parameter the particular drug sample has been declared as not of standard quality including dissolution.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 07.05.2019 ( Appeal No.CIC/CDSCH/A/2017/182771-BJ +CIC/CDTTM/A/2017/184337-BJ) wherein while narrating a detailed point-wise response to the queries raised in the RTI application, it was submitted that the Central Drugs Testing Laboratory, Hyderabad is National Statutory Laboratory of the Government of India for quality control of Drugs and Cosmetic and is established under Indian Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Rules there under. Moreover, each and every process from the manner of receipt of samples from the Drugs Inspector has been stipulated under Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules there under. It was further submitted that the Appellant had clubbed multiple points in a single query and the similar case had been endorsed in several decisions of the Commission (Kamal C. Tiwari Vs. Ministry of Defense in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00190 & File No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00291 dated 08.06.2007). Moreover, the Laboratory has disclosed (Suo-motto) the necessary details as per Section 4 of the RTI Act in the CDSCO's website. The Central Drugs Testing Laboratory, Hyderabad has participated in the Transparency Audit conducted by the Central Information Commission & scored good grade.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 08.05.2019 (Appeal No. CIC/MH&FW/A/2017/184359-BJ) wherein while narrating a detailed point-wise response to the queries raised in the RTI application, it was submitted that the Regional Drugs Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh is National Statutory Laboratory of the Government of India for quality control of Drugs and Cosmetic and is established under Indian Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Rules 1945, there under. Moreover, each and every process from the manner of Receipt of Samples and submission of test report to the concerned senders of the samples has been stipulated under Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules there under. It was further informed that all the detail of drug samples declared not of standard quality were displayed month-wise in CDSCO's website (www.cdsco.gov.in) under caption "Drug Alerts" apart from disclosing pharmaceutical dosage form. Moreover, the parameters of the particular drug samples which had been declared as not of standard quality including dissolution were also mentioned. The Appellant had also clubbed multiple points in a single query and repeatedly mentioned in 4 points, which have unnecessarily increased the complexity of the matter. It togetherly proved that the Appeal and the desired information were vague in nature and he was intentionally trying to divert the public resources to impede the normal and regular working of the public institute. The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Dy. Director, DGHS (RTI Cell), New Delhi addressed to the ADC (I) & CPIO, CDSCO, dated 02.05.2019 (Appeal No. CIC/CDTTM/A/2017/184337-BJ) wherein it was informed that the RTI application of the Page 5 of 11 Appellant was not received in the RTI Cell, Dte. GHS, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi and further requested to take necessary action in terms of CIC notice dated 22.04.2019.
The Respondent at New Delhi, while endorsing the above submissions of the Respondents, submitted that the details of drug samples declared not of standard quality were already notified in the official website under caption "Drug Alerts" apart from disclosing pharmaceutical dosage. While agreeing with the viewpoints expressed by all the CPIOs of different Laboratories, it was articulated that periodic assessment / review is under taken by them to verify the processes followed by each of the laboratories and harmonize the information collated by them. This was a dynamic and a continuous exercise.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, Page 6 of 11 advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo- motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
Page 7 of 11"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
The Commission also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing Page 8 of 11 on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
On perusal of the available records, the Commission also observed that in several queries raised in the RTI application, the Appellant did not seek any specific information but desired all information which was vague and ambiguous. In this context, the Commission referred to the following observations made by the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in the matter of State Information Commission vs. Tushar Dhananjay Mandlekar, LPA No. 276/ 2012 in Writ Petition No. 3818/2010 (D) dated 30.07.2012 which is relevant to the present matter:
"It is apparent from a reading of what is stated above that instead of seeking information on some specific issues, the respondent sought general information on scores of matters. The application is vague and the application does not make it clear to the Information Officer as to what information is actually sought by the respondent from the Officer. It was literally impossible for the appellants, as pointed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, to supply the entire information sought by the respondent to the respondent within a period of 30 days. The documents ran into 3419 pages. We had asked the respondent while hearing of this letters patent appeal as to what action did the respondent take in pursuance of the information sought by the respondent after the information was supplied and it was replied by the respondent appearing in person that nothing was done on the basis of the information supplied by the appellants as there was some delay in supplying the information. It is really surprising that thousands of documents are being sought by the respondent from the authorities and none of the documents is admittedly brought into use. We are clearly of the view in the aforesaid backdrop that the application was filed with a mala fide intention and with a view to abuse the process of law.
In the aforesaid set of facts, we feel that there is no justification for imposing the costs of Rs.2,000/- on the appellant no.2. The principle of lex non cogit ad impossibilia is clearly applicable to the facts of the case. Law does not compel a person to do that what is impossible. In the facts of the present case, we feel that it was impossible for the appellant no.2 to supply the information which ran into thousands of pages to the respondent within a period of 30 days, as those pages were not readily available with the respondent on the day the application was filed and the Officers were required to search and collect the information, which was required to be supplied to the applicant."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Shyam Kunwar vs. CIC and Ors., W.P. (C) 5099/ 2016 dated 30.05.2016 had held as under:
"Upon perusal of the RTI application filed by the petitioner in which information of attendance of all teachers have been asked for between the years 1993 and 2001, this Court is of the opinion that the information asked for is stale and no element of public interest is involved. It seems to this Court that the petitioner's queries are at best a fishing and roving enquiry to challenge 'Mr.Arun Arya's meteoric rise from UDC to youngest ever Principal'"Page 9 of 11
The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"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. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 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 forum. 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."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had 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 strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as Page 10 of 11 expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by all the parties, and in the light of replies furnished by the Respondents, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. However, the Respondents are advised to place generic information in the public domain for the benefit of public at large. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 15.05.2019
Page 11 of 11