Central Information Commission
Yashwant Dighe vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 17 June, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NPCOI/A/2018/634934-BJ
Mr. Yashwant Dighe
(Email: [email protected]/ [email protected])
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited,
12-N-14, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan,
Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai - 400094
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17.06.2020
Date of Decision : 17.06.2020
Date of RTI application 20.02.2018
CPIO's response 21.03.2018
Date of the First Appeal 26.04.2018
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 06.11.2018
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the details of various recognized trade unions and employee associations existing at various sites of NPCIL and registered under Trade Unions Act; details of number of protected workmen declared under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act by Station Management at each site of NPCIL as also the details of protected workmen like Name of employee, Designation, Portfolio held in Union/Association, presently posted in which Section and tenure for which they were declared as protected employee in the attached format, etc. Page 1 of 5 The CPIO, vide its letter dated 21.03.2018, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant which was attached as Annexure I. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The 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. Yashwant Dighe through TC;
Respondent: Mr. S. K. Shrivastava, Addl. Chief Engineer & Central Public Information Officer through TC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that complete and satisfactory information had not been received by him, till date. He vehemently argued that wrong and misleading information was provided in respect of Narora and Rajasthan work stations as he had information that in these two stations, protected workmen had been declared which was contrary to the views expressed by the Respondent during the hearing. Furthermore, he submitted that the First Appellate Authority had not passed any order within the stipulated time period. A reminder was also forwarded to the Public Authority in this regard. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the replies of the CPIO and stated that after filing of First Appeal, they had provided all the information to the Appellant on first two points pertaining to MAPS vide FAA's order dated 26.11.2018. The Appellant contested the above averments of the Respondent and stated that for Narora and Rajasthan, it was informed that no such information was available with them which was wrong and baseless. On being queried by the Commission whether an affidavit could be furnished to the effect of non- availability of the records in respect of these two stations, the Respondent stated that they would prefer to re-examine the matter as they had provided information based on the inputs received from the respective stations. Furthermore, the Appellant submitted that on point no. 03, the information sought regarding the response provided by the Public Authority to the Administrative Ministry of NPCIL in respect of implementation of DPE O.M. No. 2(54)/08-DPE (WC)- GL-XVI/2010 dated 9th Sept., 2010 for pay revision of employee, was not responded satisfactorily. The Respondent however agreed to re-examine the RTI application and to furnish a clear, cogent and precise response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated Nil wherein while reiterating the chronological sequence of an event, it was submitted that the information pertaining to all the three points sought by the Appellant in connection with all NPCIL units, except the information on first two points pertaining to Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS) were provided by the CPIO vide his reply dated 21.03.2018. The information on first two points pertaining to MAPS were also provided to the Appellant vide FAA's Order dated 26.11.2018. Hence, no information sought by the Appellant is withheld or denied. Therefore, it was humbly prayed to the Commission to dispose of the instant Appeal while considering the factual position. It was also requested to adjudicate the matter on the basis of the written submissions.
Page 2 of 5The Commission felt that correct and timely response is the essence of the RTI mechanism enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
With regard to providing a clear and cogent response to the Appellant, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that:
" 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."
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 a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. 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, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, 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.
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 3 of 5
"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 therefore observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission instructs the First Appellate Authority to re-examine the RTI application and provide a clear, cogent and precise point-wise information to the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 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:
[email protected]/ [email protected]) as agreed.
The Respondent is also instructed to forward a copy of the written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant within the above stipulated time period depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email (Email: [email protected]/ [email protected]).
The Commission also 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 Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Chief Information Commissioner) (मु य सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 17.06.2020
Page 4 of 5
Copy to:-
1. Chairman and Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, Nabhikiya Urja Bhavan, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai - 400 094, India.Page 5 of 5