Central Information Commission
Radheshyam Pandurang Chawade vs Central Public Works Department (Wr) on 18 May, 2020
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CPWWR/A/2018/157316-BJ
Mr. Radheshyam Pandurang Chawade
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Executive Engineer (E), Nagpur Central Elect. Division,
Central Public Works Department,
CGO Building, "B" Block, 3rd Floor,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur-440006
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.05.2020
Date of Decision : 18.05.2020
Date of RTI application 29.05.2017
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of the First Appeal 21.07.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.09.2018
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points in respect of one Shri Pandurang Govind Rao Chawade (Rtd.) his pension details; the order based on which his pension was increased/decreased; the certified copy of his pension sanctioned order etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of CPIO/order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Radheshyam Pandurang Chawade through TC;
Respondent: Mrs. Swati Mangrulkar Malodee, AAO / CPIO through TC;Page 1 of 5
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought had not been received and desired imposition of penalty on the Respondent. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 15.05.2020 wherein it was inter alia prayed to the Commission to impose penalty on the erring Respondent and to compensate him Rs. 25,000/- for mental harassment and economic loss on account of nonpayment of his due pension amount. Contesting the averments of the Appellant, the Respondent informed that the pension case of the Appellant's father who retired on 30.06.1990 in the 4th Pay Commission had been settled at that time and a reply had been sent on 08.06.2017. Thereafter the revisions in accordance with 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Commission had been made and pension fixed accordingly. In its written submission a series of correspondence had been enclosed.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 08.05.2020 wherein it was submitted that as per the notice dated 04.05.2020 attached with the email, it was seen that copy of it had been given to the FAA & SE, Nagpur Central Circle, CPWD, 6, Seminary Hills, Nagpur (MS). It was therefore submitted that the CPWD had undergone re-organization/re-structuring in 2019 and the O/o the SE, NCC is closed now. On perusal of the relevant documents of the Applicant, it was seen that the RTI application dated 29.05.2017 had been addressed to the CPIO, SE (Electrical) Nagpur, Central Electrical Division, CPWD, B-Block, 3rd floor, CGO Complex. In this regard, it was submitted that on B-Block, 3rd floor, CGO Complex both O/o the SE (E), Nagpur, Central Electrical Circle and O/o the EE (E), Nagpur, Central Electrical Division existed at that time. Now, as per re-organisation/ re-
structuring of CPWD (2019), the O/o SE (E), NCEC is closed now. The CPIO, NCEC, vide letter No. 1273-74 dated 31.05.2017, had transferred the RTI to the relevant CPIO i.e. the CPIO, NCED, Nagpur. Also the persons for whom the information had been sought by the Applicant in his RTI application dated 31.05.2017 are retired persons on superannuation of O/o the EE (E), Nagpur Central Electrical Division. Therefore, the case is not related to their office and it was requested to not consider the CPIO and EE (HQ) the Respondent made vide notice dated 04.05.2020 as the Respondent. Furthermore, the above case is related to O/o the EE(E), Nagpur Central Electrical Division, Nagpur and as directed by the Commission in email dated 05.05.2020, the notice of the hearing had been forwarded to the concerned CPIO i.e. the CPIO, NCED, Nagpur.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent, AAO/CPIO, NCED, CPWD dated 14th May, 2020 wherein while reiterating the chronological sequence of the event, a point-wise reply asked by the Appellant was enclosed.
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."Page 2 of 5
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 Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), 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, 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 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, Page 3 of 5 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 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.Page 4 of 5
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 both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum. The Respondent is however instructed to forward a copy of the written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email ([email protected]), as agreed.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
(Bimal Julka) (नबमल जुल्का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) K.L. Das (के .एल.िास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 18.05.2020 Page 5 of 5