Central Information Commission
Amal Mandal vs Damodar Valley Corporation on 4 November, 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/DVCOR/A/2022/120453
Amal Mandal ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION,
RTI CELL, DVC TOWERS, VIP ROAD,
KOLKATA-700054, WEST BENGAL. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03/11/2022
Date of Decision : 03/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27/12/2021
CPIO replied on : 12/01/2022
First appeal filed on : 22/02/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 08/03/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25/04/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.12.2021 seeking the following information:1
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 12.01.2022 denying the information at point no. 1 under section 8(1)(g) & 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. While in response to points no. 2, 3 & 4 of the RTI application, he furnished a factual response.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.02.2022. FAA's order dated 08.03.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO and also furnished a revised reply against point no. 4 inviting attention of the Appellant towards the specific hyperlink from where the details of FAA and the details of CIC could be accessed.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Along with advocate Nirmal Kumar Singh present through video- conference.
Respondent: Sangita Sil, DCE (E) & CPIO along with Nishant Pilania Jt. Director (HR) Vigilance Department present through video-conference.
The Rep. of the Appellant at the outset narrated their grievance at length regarding non-allotment of his alternate entitled land area for construction of a shop in lieu of the land acquired by the Respondent Authority which caused him financial stress. This led him to file the averred complaint and upon non-receipt of a positive response, he took the shelter of RTI Act by filing the instant RTI 2 Application. However, he is aggrieved by the fact that no material information including the specific action taken report along with copies of the specific note sheets dealing with his complaint have not been furnished to him either by the CPIO or by the FAA. He urged for relief of complete desired information as sought for in the RTI Application and also for award of compensation for facing mental agony and financial strain.
Sangita Sil, DCE (E) & CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with readily available information has already been provided to the Appellant. Upon Commission's instance, the CPIO further clarified the factual background regarding the complaint dated 30.08.2021 of the Appellant which is related to his grievance for non-allotment of land portion/compensation issue and does not bear any vigilance angle and that only their administrative wing is the competent authority to take any action on such complaint. At the behest of the Commission the CPIO agreed to provide the outcome of the action taken on his complaint in a categorical manner against point no. 1 of RTI Application.
Decision:
The Commission based upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties observes that blanket denial of information by the CPIO at point no. 1 under section 8(1)(g) & 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act was not appropriate as the Appellant has merely sought for action taken report along with note sheet of daily progress on his complaint. The CPIO instead of proper application of mind with regards to applicability of Section 10 of RTI Act as for severance of records vaguely denied the information altogether in response of point no. 1. The only pertinent exemption from disclosure of information against the said point appears to be with respect to the names and identifying particulars of the investigating officer(s), statement of witnesses and/ or other officers which may be reflected on the noting /comments/enquiry report and cannot be divulged considering the exemptions envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
In view of the foregoing, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply in response to point no. 1 indicating the outcome / categorical action taken on the averred complaint along with the relevant available information after procuring the same from the actual record holder i.e. Administrative wing of the Respondent which will suffice the information sought for after redacting the names and identifying particulars of the other third party officers, if any, which 3 may figure in the noting /comments/inquiry report keeping in view the exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act and can be severed in consonance with Section 10 of RTI Act.
The aforesaid reply/information shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
As regards the information sought at points no. 2- 4 of RTI Act, the Commission finds no scope for further relief in the matter as the reply of the CPIO on the said points are in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
Further, the issue raised by the Rep. of Appellant regarding allocation of land area for his shop is purely a matter of grievance which is not amenable under the RTI Act. 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 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 4 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) The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5