Central Information Commission
Shri P. Veerappan vs Department Of Personnel & Training ... on 6 April, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01551 & 1552 both dated 5.12.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri P. Veerappan
Respondent - Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT)
Facts:
These are two appeals of Shri P. Verappan of Mettacur, Yanam, Puducherry, seeking information as follows:
File No. CIC/WB/A 2007/01551 In his application of 14.7.07 Shri Verappan has applied to the Jt. Secy., Chief Secretariat, Puducherry seeking the following information:
"1. Please supply me a copy of Rules made by the appropriate Government (Central Government) u/s 27 of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. Please supply me a copy of Rules made by the competent authority (President of India) u/s 28 of the RTI Act 2005.
3. Please supply me a copy of guidelines published by the appropriate Government (Central Govt.) u/s 26 (2) and (3) (4) of RTI Act, 2005.
4. Please supply me a copy of order if any published by the Central Government u/s 30 of the RTI Act 2005."
Vide ID Note dated 19.7.07 Shri A. Kullan, Jt. Secretary, Chief Secretariat, Administrative Reforms Wing, Puducherry transferred this application to the Central Information Commission which in turn transferred the same u/s 6(3) (i) of the RTI Act 2005 to the CPIO, DOPT on 13.7.07. Consequently, through a letter of 24.8.07 Shri D.C.Sharma, SO, DOPT sent the following reply to Shri Veerappan:
"Point 1 copy of the Rules made by the Appropriate Authority u/s 27 i.e. 6 pages @ Rs. 2/- = Rs. 12/-.
Point 2,3 & 4 you have desired for the copies of the Rules made by the Appropriate Government u/s 26 (2), (3) & (4) and 28 and 30. No rules have been framed."1
Not satisfied with this response Shri Veerappan moved an appeal before Ms. Anuradha Chagti, OSD, DoPT on 14.9.07 praying as follows:
"Please admit this appeal and pass necessary orders to CPIO of D.P&T to supply me the information free of cost to all my request in my application and to transfer my part of request to any other CPIO if necessary and to supply me the guide published u/s 26 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005."
In a speaking order of 21.9.07 Ms. Anuradha Chagti has directed as follows:
"Your application dt. 14-7-07 has been received in this Department on 6-8-07. Therefore, you are not entitled to get the information free of cost. However, in order to facilitate information, copies of the rules made by the appropriate Government are enclosed.
Section 28 of the RTI Act stipulates that the competent authority may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act. The competent authority has been defined in Section 2 (e) of the Act. In view of this, information with reference to para `2' of your appeal which specifically mentions `President of India', has rightly been not framed any rules u/s 28 of the Act. The CPIO was within his rights to claim that the competent authority in his case `The President of India' has not framed any rules u/s 28 of the RTI Act. The list of competent authorities and the rules made by them as provided in Section 2 (e) of the Act are not centrally maintained.
Section 26 (2) of the act mandates that the appropriate Government, within 18 months from the commencement of the Act, had to compile a guide containing such information in any easily comprehensive form and manner as may be required by a person who wishes to exercise any Right specified in this Act. This Department has posted necessary clarifications on its website viz., http;//www.persmin.nic.in. However, a copy of the same may be obtained after payment of Rs. 50/- @ Rs. 2/- per page for 25 pages.
No rules have been framed u/s 30 of the Act. However, as pointed by you in your appeal, Department of Posts have appointed 3672 Central Assistant Public Information Officers under clause (2) of Section 5 of the Act."
However, Shri Veerappan has moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
2"The appellant pray the Commission to admit his appeal and conduct the inquiry with both the CPIO and the FAA and pass necessary orders to the CPIO to supply the information free of cost to the appellant at an early date for his request at serial No. 3 and 4 in the application Form-1.
The appellant pray the commission to direct the CPIO to transfer the part of application (Request at Sl. No.2) to the concerned CPIO of Public authorities whose competent authority is the President of India.
The appellant pray the commission to award penalty to the CPIO for supplying incomplete and misleading information and also not transferring the application u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act to other CPIO of Public authorities whose competent authority is the President of India for his request at serial No.2 in the application.
The appellant pray the Commission to pass necessary orders to the concerned authority to compensate the appellant for the time and cost he has wasted on filing of two appeals with the first and second appellate authorities.
The appellant pray the Commission to recommend for disciplinary action against the CPIO for supplying false information simply that no rules have been framed."
File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01552 In this case Shri Veerappan moved an application before the Lok Sabha Secretariat on 18.8.07 seeking the following information:
"Please supply me the copy of complete file pertaining to the increasing of (Present) Retirement age of Government servants from 58 to 60 years in the various Central Government service.
Complete file means (or) includes:-
From the file put up stage to Govt. order (GO) issued stage like stages at the concerned Ministry, Law and Finance Ministry, Cabinet stage, Lok Sabha stage, PM Sectt. and President Sectt. stages and final GO issued stage without deleting the file notings of higher authorities."
To this he received a response from CPIO Shri A. K. Chaturvedi, U.S.(Estt) DoPT dated 8.9.07 as follows:
3"Relevant extracts/correspondence of this Department F. No. 25012/2/97-Estt. (A) regarding increase in retirement age from 58 to 60 years consists of about 364 pages, which can be sent to you on receipt of payment of Rs. 728 @ Rs. 2/- per page."
Pleading that being delayed the information should have been provided free of cost, Shri Verappan moved an appeal before Shri P. Prabhakaran, DS (Estt) DOPT on 17.10.07 upon which he received an order of 7.11.07 from Shri P. Prabhakaran DS as follows:
"In the above circumstances the CPIO, DOP&T has not failed to comply the time limit and as such the applicant's claim of eligibility to get information free of charge cannot be sustained."
DS has detailed the processing of the RTI application of Shri Veerappan in this order as follows:
"The Lok Sabha Sectt. vide their letter No. 1(267)/IC/07 dated 27-8- 07 transferred the application to CPIO of DOP&T with a copy to the applicant. CPIO of DoP&T has received the letter and the application on 12-9-07."
Shri Veerappan has then moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer :
"a) Admit this appeal and to call the records of transaction of papers from Lok Sabha to DOP&T and conduct the inquiry and pass necessary orders to the CPIO to supply the information free of cost at an early date without any further delay.
b) Award penalties to the CPIO and recommend for disciplinary action for not supplying the information and for furnishing of false information that the application was received on 12-9-07 only by the DOPT.
c) Pass orders to the CPIO to compensate the losses happened to the appellant both in time and money for filing two appeals."
In both appeals, therefore, other than secondary issues, the principal issue is whether information received after the time limit mandated u/s 7(1) is in both 4 these cases required to be provided free of cost u/s 7 sub section (6) of the RTI Act. Both appeals were heard together on 6.4.2009. The following are present:
Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi.
Ms. Anuradha Chagti, D.S. Mr. R. K. Girdhar, U.S. Mr. P. Prabhakaran, D.S. Although arrangements had been made for hearing through video conferencing with NIC Puducherry, appellant Shri Veerappan has opted not to be present.
FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2007/01551 Ms. Anuradha Chagti, DS, DOPT submitted that what the act mandates is that the CPIO receiving an application under the RTI Act must send a reply within thirty days of the receipt of the request which in both these cases has been done. Therefore, there is no ground for exemption from payment of fees. She, however, submitted that at any rate the copy of the rules sought by the appellant Shri Veerappan have been provided free of cost in keeping with the policy of the Department to disseminate such information among the public. On the other hand the guidelines have been uploaded on the Department's website. If appellant wishes to have a printout of these guidelines, he is required to pay the necessary fee.
Ms. Anuradha Chagti also explained that as per the decision of the DoPT, on the question of transfer of application the DOPT has issued an OM on 12.6.08 on the position having been brought to the notice of the Department that requests are made to such public authorities under RTI Act in cases which are ofr no concern to those public authorities. In this OM, if the information sought is held by more than one other public authority, the PIO should inform the applicant that the information is not available with the public authority applied to and the appellant should make separate application to concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them.5
FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2007/01552 In this case Shri P. Prabhakaran DS submitted that the application was verging on the frivolous and seeking a fee by the CPIO would act as a discouragement to such frivolous applications.
DECISION NOTICE Having heard respondents and examined the records, we find that the key issues are two :
1. Whether the information sought is to be supplied free of cost if the date of dispatch of such information is more than the mandated time limit for supply of information, or if that clause will apply only from the date when the concerned public authority receives the request for information.
2. On the question of transfer of applications in this case, the competent authorities have been listed in sec. 2(e) of the Act. Was it, therefore, not incumbent upon the CPIO to transfer this application u/s 6(3) sub section
(ii) of the RTI Act?
ISSUE 1 Section 7(6) of the RTI Act reads as follows:
"7(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub-section (1)".
The public authority in the present case is the DOPT, the CPIO of which u/s 7 sub sec. (1) is expected, on receipt of a request u/s 6 to provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request "as expeditiously as possible and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request". 1 1 Underlined by us 6 In both cases above, the CPIO has responded to the applications within thirty days of receipt of the request for information, which was also the time during which the public authority i.e. the DoPT, took in processing this RTI application. Sec. 7(6) will, therefore, not apply.
ISSUE 2 In this case the key suggestions made in the OM referred to are in paragraph (iii) which reads as follows:
"A person makes an application to a public authority for information, a part of which is available with that public authority and the rest of the information is scattered with more than one other public authorities. In such a case, the PIO of the public authority receiving the application should give information relating to it and advise the applicant to make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them. If no part of the information sought, is available with it but is scattered with more than one other public authorities, the PIO should inform the applicant that information is not available with the public authority and that the applicant should make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them. It may be noted that the Act requires the supply of such information only which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act for a public authority to create information. Collection of information, parts of which are available with different public authorities, would amount to creation of information which a public authority under the Act is not required to do. At the same time, since the information is not related to any one particular public authority, it is not the case where application should be transferred under sub section (3) of Section 6 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that sub section (3) refers to `another public authority' and not `other public authorities'. Use of singular form in the Act in this regard is important to note."
This direction is defective on the ground that collection of information can in no account be constituted to amount to the creation of information. However, it is also correct that u/s 6(1) an applicant is expected to move a request for information to those identified under sub-sections (a) & (b) of sec. 6(1). Under such circumstances, the CPIO of the public authority incorrectly applied to may indeed inform the applicant regarding the fact that it is not the concerned 7 authority in the matter. However, if the information sought is part of the overall information sought in a particular application, but is not held by the concerned public authority, to whom the application is made, then that public authority is bound to make the transfer u/s 6(3) sub sec. (i) or (ii).
In the present case, however, we do agree that the Competent Authorities are described in sec. 2(e) of the RTI Act. Information regarding those competent authorities should indeed be sought from them directly. Since the CPIO DoPT has clarified that this is information is distinct from what it holds DoPTcan be held responsible for providing information only with regard to the latter. While the decision of Appellate Authority Miss Anuradha Chagti DS is, therefore, upheld on this issue, the DOPT is directed u/s 19 (8) (a) sub sec. (iv) to modify its OM No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12.6.2008 to bring it in full conformity with the law and avoid confusion among public authorities.
With the above observations, both appeals are dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 6.4.2009 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 6.4.2009 8