Central Information Commission
P Kannan vs Ut Of Andaman & Nicobar on 9 April, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/UTOAN/A/2021/100912-UM+
CIC/UTOAN/A/2020/110830-UM+
CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/145873-UM+
CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/131557-UM+
CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/120281-UM+
CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/119744-UM+
CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/119738-UM+
CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/119740-UM
Mr. P. Kannan,
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o Secretariat,
A & N Administration Port Blair,
A & N Island - 744101
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.04.2021
Date of Decision : 09.04.2021
ORDER
RTI- I File No. CIC/UTOAN/A/2021/100912-UM Date of RTI application 26.05.2020 CPIO's response 29.05.2020 Date of the First Appeal 01.07.2020 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 07.01.2021 Page 1 of 10 FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought certified copies of all the documents related to the certified copy of the circular issued by the Commissioner cum Secretary (AR & Trg.) dated 13.02.2020 in connection with the citizen charter of A & N Admn along with all file noting and details of schedule copy which was released by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor on 01.01.2015.
The AS (AR & Trg.), vide letter dated 29.05.2020 requested the appellant to deposit stationery charges Rs. 2/- at the earliest in order to provide the documents.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal, which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI- II File No. CIC/UTOAN/A/2020/110830-UM Date of RTI application 08.11.2019 CPIO's response 06.12.2019 Date of the First Appeal 16.12.2019 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 05.03.2020 FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points:
1. Provide certified copies of letter addressed to your good office by the Chief Administrative Officer/Competent Official, for reservation of helicopter tickets to Inter Islands for District Judge & Judicial Officers of other states who have been on tour to these Islands and their relatives & fiends and also relative & friends of Judicial Officers Posted in A&N Islands. Who are on holiday trip.
2. Provide certified copy of circular or guideline or order if any issued by the Competent Authority for reservation/ usage of rooms on the basis of Chief Administrative Officer/ Competent Officials letter.
3. Provide certified copies of mode of payment i.e. cash/ Cheque/ credit card or adjustment in Govt. account made by the above said officials/ family members.
The PIO/AS (GA), Secretariat vide letter dated 06.12.2019 in respect to point no. 1 no information has been provided to Appellant. Further, in respect to point no. 2 appellant was informed that information sought for is not available and in respect to point no. 3 RTI was transferred to JE, In- Charge, Circuit House.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal, which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
Page 2 of 10
RTI- III File No. CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/145873-UM
Date of RTI application 17.06.2019
CPIO's response 26.06.2019
Date of the First Appeal 28.07.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 26.08.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 19.09.2019
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought following information related to action taken on letter dated 16.04.2018 forwarded to you by the O/o the Presidents Secretariat, New Delhi:-
a. Provide certified copies of the details of following documents in connection with the letter above mentioned :-
1. Letters communicated to others along with file notings.
2. Details of inquiry conducted, if any along with file notings.
3. Details of inquiry report, if any, along with file notings.
4. Details of orders passed, if any, along with file notings& order copy.
5. Action taken in this regard, if any, along with file notings.
6. Copy of the legal opinion obtained from the other higher officials, if any.
7. Complete file noting in this regard.
The PIO/AS (Vig.), O/o the Secretariat, vide letter dated 26.06.2019 denied the information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 26.08.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI- IV File No. CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/131557-UM Date of RTI application 01.03.2019 CPIO's response 26.03.2019 Date of the First Appeal 29.04.2019 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 03.07.2019 FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought copy of order delegating the power of Chief Vigilance Officer to the present Chief Secretary (CVO), A&N Admn. Port Blair Page 3 of 10 The PIO/DS (Perl), O/o Secretariat, Andaman vide letter dated 26.03.2019 informed the appellant that on verification it is observed that the validity of the IPO has already been expired.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI- V File No. CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/120281-UM Date of RTI application 15.11.2018 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 17.12.2018 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 01.05.2019 FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought following information related to action taken on letter dated 15.10.2018 forwarded to the O/o the Chief Secretary from the O/o the Director & CPIO, the MHA, GOI, New Delhi:-
b. Provide certified copies of the details of following documents in connection with the letter above mentioned :-
8. Letters communicated to others along with file notings.
9. Details of inquiry conducted, if any along with file notings.
10. Details of inquiry report, if any, along with file notings.
11. Details of orders passed, if any, along with file notings & order copy.
12. Action taken in this regard, if any, along with file notings.
13. Copy of the legal opinion obtained from the other higher officials, if any.
14. Complete file noting in this regard.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI- VI File No. CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/119744-UM
Date of RTI application 31.12.2018
CPIO's response 05.01.2019
Date of the First Appeal 08.02.2019
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 29.04.2019
Page 4 of 10
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points:
The PIO/DS (Pers), O/o Secretariat vide letter dated 05.01.2019 informed the appellant that no information/documents are available with personnel department. However a guidelines on additional charge of the current duties provided under Clause 3 of Govt. of India's order below Rule F.R. 49 is enclosed.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI- VII File No. CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/119738-UM Date of RTI application 05.11.2018 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 18.12.2018 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 29.04.2019 FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought following information related to action taken on letter dated 29.06.2018 forwarded to the O/o the Chief Secretary from the Under Secreary to the GOI.:-
c. Provide certified copies of the details of following documents in connection with the letter above mentioned :-
15. Letters communicated to others along with file noting.
16. Details of inquiry conducted, if any along with file notings.
17. Details of inquiry report, if any, along with file notings.Page 5 of 10
18. Details of orders passed, if any, along with file notings& order copy.
19. Action taken in this regard, if any, along with file notings.
20. Copy of the legal opinion obtained from the other higher officials, if any.
21. Complete file noting in this regard.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
RTI- VIII File No. CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/119740-UM Date of RTI application 24.01.2019 CPIO's response 19.03.2019 Date of the First Appeal 26.02.2019 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 29.04.2019 FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points:-
1. Provide certified copies of the details of documents in connection with the order /notification No. GI, MHA, O.M. No. F.7/14/61- Ests (A) dated 24.01.1963.
2. Provide certified copies of the Rules & Regulations, terms & conditions and status of the CDC, maximum and minimum period entitled to hold the office through current duty charge by the officials in Govt department.
3. Provide certified copies of the details of act, rules and regulations, notification declared by the GOI for getting priority for their promotion through DPC, those officials are presently holding higher post through CDC in several years.
The PIO/DS (Pers), O/o Secretariat vide letter dated 19.03.2019 informed the appellant that no information/documents are available with this PIO in respect to query nos. 01 and 03. Further, in respect to query no. 02 appellant was requested for depositing of Rs. 04/-.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
Page 6 of 10HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. P. Kannan, through VC;
Respondent: Absent.
The Respondent remained absent throughout the hearing. Ms. Kalyani, Network Engineer, studio at NIC Port Blair confirmed the absence of the Respondent. The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI Applications and stated that no satisfactory information was provided to him in all these matters. He further submitted that no order has been passed by the First Appellate Authority in most of the cases.
In Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOAN/A/2021/100912-UM, the Appellant submitted that he was called for the First Appellate hearing which he attended but due to some official difficulties of the Respondent no order had been passed by the FAA.
In Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/131557-UM, the Appellant submitted that the Respondent had blatantly denied the information and that he had purchased the IPO only 7 months before filing of the RTI Application and that the validity of an IPO is 24 months.
The provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and various judgements on the subject matter clearly establishes that it is the duty of the CPIO to provide clear, cogent and precise response to the information seekers. Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005 also states that where a request for disclosure of information is rejected, the CPIO shall communicate the reasons for such rejection. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 clearly stated that the PIO acts as the Pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act. The relevant extracts of the decision are as under:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed that:-
".....The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
Page 7 of 10"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."
The Commission also noted that it should be the endeavour of the CPIO to ensure that maximum assistance should be provided to the RTI applicants to ensure the flow of information. In this context, the Commission referred to the OM No.4/9/2008-IR dated 24.06.2008 issued by the DoP&T on the Subject "Courteous behavior with the persons seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005" wherein it was stated as under:
"The undersigned is directed to say that the responsibility of a public authority and its public information officers (PIO) is not confined to furnish information but also to provide necessary help to the information seeker, wherever necessary."
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, issued by the M/o Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, D/o Personnel and Training, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
5..............................The Act provides that the first appellate authority would be an officer senior in rank to the CPIO. Thus, the appellate authority, as per provisions of the Act, would be an officer in a commanding position vis a vis' the CPIO. Nevertheless, if, in any case, the CPIO does not implement the order passed by the appellate authority and the appellate authority feels that intervention of higher authority is required to get his order implemented, he should bring the matter to the notice of the officer in the public authority competent to take against the CPIO. Such competent officer shall take necessary action so as to ensure implementation of the RTI Act. "
The Respondent was not present to contest the submissions of the Appellant or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant, the Commission observed that the RTI Applications were not dealt with in a time bound manner in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 nor does the Respondent pay any heed to appearing or to submitting any written submission thereto, even after the receipt of Notice from the Commission. The Commission further observes that as the head of the Administration of Andaman & Nicobar Island the Chief Secretary is responsible for the administration in the Union Territory. Therefore, it is a serious matter that replies are not given on his behalf at all. This tantamount to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the Commission directs the O/o. the Chief Page 8 of 10 Secretary to take RTI Applications more seriously in the larger interest of transparency and dissemination of information.
The Commission further directs the Respondent to furnish revised replies as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, to the Appellant in the above-mentioned matters within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to this Commission. In the Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/131557-UM, the Commission further directs the Respondent to furnish a revised reply to the Appellant free of Cost, within the above-mentioned stipulated time frame, under the intimation to the Commission.
In Second Appeals No. CIC/UTOAN/A/2020/110830-UM, CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/120281-UM and CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/119738-UM, the Commission takes adverse note of the absence of the CPIO and mala fide denial of information. As regards the contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, is concerned, it is evident that wilful obstruction in the flow of information has been caused, which is a grave violation of the Act. The Commission therefore, issues Show cause Notice to the current CPIO responsible for the deliberate and wilful contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act. The concerned Noticee shall show- cause by furnishing a written submission explaining the reason why penal action u/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 should not be initiated against him for the denial in providing the information within the aforementioned stipulated time.
The Commission also cautions the CPIO, O/o. the Chief Secretary to exercise due care in future and to ensure that correct and complete information be furnished in time to the RTI Applicant(s) as per provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under Section 20 shall be initiated.
The Commission further instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeals stands disposed off accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानित एवं सत्यानित प्रनत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 09.04.2021 Page 9 of 10 Copy to:
1. The Chief Secretary, Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Port Blair, Andaman & Nicobar Island- 744101
2. The CPIO, O/o. the Chief Secretary, Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Port Blair, Andaman & Nicobar Island- 744101 Page 10 of 10