Central Information Commission
R Kumar vs India Tourism Development Corporation ... on 12 December, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/ITDCO/A/2021/132027
In the matter of
R Kumar
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.(ITDC)
5th Floor Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110 003
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 15/10/2020 CPIO replied on : 15/11/2020 First appeal filed on : 18/01/2021 First Appellate Authority order dated : 16/02/2021 Second Appeal Filed on : 05/08/2021 Date of Hearing : 07/09/2022 Date of Decision : 07/09/2022 The following were present: Appellant: Present over intra VC
Respondent: ShM N Basha, GM & CPIO, present over intra VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information with regard to the works carried out by IET on behalf of ITDC at DDA Site, D-6, Vasant Kunj, CWG-2010 Project, Asoka Hotel and Mock-up sample flat:
1.(i) India Exports Today (IET) has written several letters and emails to ITDC towards pending payments against bills submitted from time to time but no action has been taken. In this connection, provide copies of Minutes/Notes of the meetings, noting file, details of action taken with regard to the same.
1.(ii) Provide copies of the e-mails, documents, including internal memos, communication, for the concerned departments, comments, instructions provided to dealing officers by Corporate office on IET communications.1
2. Provide copies of exchange of letters/e-mails between ITDC - DDA and DDA to ITDC and further ITDC to Govt. auditors such as CAG.
3. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as incomplete information was given to him.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 15.11.2020.
Observations:
The Commission observes that the second appeal has been filed after the lapse of the laid down timeline as per Sec 19(3) of the RTI Act. The appellant has also failed to give any valid and acceptable reason explaining the cause for delay that could have been considered as a sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing his second appeal after the stipulated time mentioned under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act nor was he able to explain the same when specifically asked during the hearing. His attention was also drawn to all the relevant dates i.e. when the FAA's order was passed, the date of filing of the second appeal, which he did not refute. In the absence of any valid reason/sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing the appeal in time, it is appropriate to consider the case as time barred under Sec 19(3) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
In view of the above, the appeal is considered as time barred under Sec 19(3) of the RTI Act and accordingly dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.2
Note: The instant second appeal came up for re-hearing on 12.12.2022 pursuant to the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 14920/2022.
Date of Hearing: 12/12/2022 Date of Decision: 12/12/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over intra VC Respondent: M N Basha, GM (Engg.) & CPIO, present over intra VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information with regard to the works carried out by IET on behalf of ITDC at DDA Site, D-6, Vasant Kunj, CWG-2010 Project, Asoka Hotel and Mock-up sample flat:
1.(i) India Exports Today (IET) has written several letters and emails to ITDC towards pending payments against bills submitted from time to time but no action has been taken. In this connection, provide copies of Minutes/Notes of the meetings, noting file, details of action taken with regard to the same.
1.(ii) Provide copies of the e-mails, documents, including internal memos, communication, for the concerned departments, comments, instructions provided to dealing officers by Corporate office on IET communications.
2. Provide copies of exchange of letters/e-mails between ITDC - DDA and DDA to ITDC and further ITDC to Govt. auditors such as CAG.
3. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that the documents annexed with the CPIO's Reply were unattested. He submitted that the copy of documents that were marked by him during the inspection were not provided to him despite multiple requests. He averred that copies of inter-departmental communications/notings regarding IET communications as sought at point no. 1(ii) in the main RTI Application were not provided by the CPIO. Dissatisfied and aggrieved, he preferred the instant appeal.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 15.11.2020. He referred to his written statement dated 09.12.2022 and apprised the Commission that the Appellant has filed multiple RTIs on similar issues with a view to resolve his grievance pertaining to bill payment. He added 3 that appropriate reply has been furnished and the Appellant has also availed the option of inspection of records in his office. On being questioned if the copy of written submission has been sent to the Appellant, the CPIO replied in negative. The Respondent submitted that the copy of documents that were marked by the Appellant during inspection were duly provided to him which was denied by the Appellant.
Observations:
Having heard both the parties at length and on perusal of the available records, the Commission observed that the Appellant in his main RTI Application had not categorically mentioned that he sought attested copies of the documents. As per records, it was raised for the first time at the appellate stage, however, in the interest of justice, the Commission allowed the request of the Appellant and directed the CPIO to supply attested copies of the documents annexed with the CPIO's reply dated 15.11.2020 to the Appellant. In this regard, a reference can be made to the relevant extract of the OM No. No. 10/1/2013-IR dated 06.10.2015 of the DoP&T, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension, Government of India which stated as under:
"2. In addition, wherever the applicant has requested for 'certified copies' of the documents or records, the CPIO should endorse on the document "True copy of the document/record supplied under RTI Act", sign the document with .date, above a seal containing name of the officer, CPIO and name of public authority."
The Commission further noted that the Appellant also sought attested copies of his own documents submitted by him to the Respondent, which he is not entitled to seek as a matter of right under the RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission referred to the observations of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of High Court, Madras vs. Central Information Commission, Writ Petition (Civil). 26781/2013:
".......We fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right ............. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act."4
Apropos to the query no.1 (ii) of the Appellant, it is a settled law that there is no blanket ban on disclosing inter-departmental communication/notings of a public authority under the RTI Act. The public authority concerned can however claim exemption as per the provisions of the RTI Act and deny such information. Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to furnish the information sought at query no.1 (ii) unless it falls under any of the exemptions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide attested copies of the documents annexed by the CPIO in his reply dated 15.11.2020 and 16.02.2021 along with the copy of written submissions dated 09.12.2022, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Commission.
The appeal is therefore disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
5