Central Information Commission
T C Sadhwani vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 24 April, 2020
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/MP/A/2016/001657-BJ
Mr T C Sadhwani
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., RTI Cell,
Ro, Arif Chamber-I, Kapoorthala Bagh,
Aliganj, Lucknow - 226024 ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.04.2020
Date of Decision : 24.04.2020
Date of RTI application 10.03.2016
CPIO's response 30.03.2016
Date of the First Appeal 19.04.2016
First Appellate Authority's response 20.05.2016
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 24.06.2016
ORDER
FACTS The instant matter was earlier decided by the Commission vide Order dated 12.01.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"5. Having considered the submissions of both the appellant and the respondents, the Commission observes that the respondents cannot provide the record that is not in their possession anymore and they can only provide the information that is existing and available with them. As for the information regarding payment of the battery of the company's car, the Commission recommends to the competent authority to consider the matter and convey the decision to the appellant within 20 days of the receipt of the appellant's request for payment of battery charges. The appeal is disposed of."
Dissatisfied due to non-compliance of the aforementioned order and several communications dated 13.02.2017, 10.03.2017, 06.04.2017, 23.05.2017 and 25.07.2017 sent by him to the Public Authority, the Appellant approached the Commission vide letter dated 12.09.2019 (diarised on 18.09.2017) on the ground that the direction in point no 05 of the order mentioned above, i.e. to provide existing and available information was not complied with by the Respondent and that only partial delayed compliance was made by releasing payment of car battery after 05 months from the date of the order. Thus, the Appellant prayed for providing him the documents/ Page 1 of 6 information pertaining to the year 2008 as detailed in RTI application dated 10.03.2016 and to impose penalty for releasing the payment of car battery after 05 months from the order and not complying with the order dated 12.01.2017 in full instead of closing the matter just paying for the car battery only.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. T.C. Sadhwani through TC:
Respondent: Mr.Prateek Raj, CPIO/AM through TC:
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the order of the Commission dated 12.01.2017 was not complied to his satisfaction since a misleading reply was provided by the Respondent by malafidely denying disclosure of documents held and available with them. Furthermore, the direction to settle payment of battery charges was not complied within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of his request for payment of such charges. Thus, it was prayed to initiate penal action against the C.P.I.O., Appellate Authority and erring official of the Respondent Public Authority who had not given the information within time and knowingly gave incorrect and misleadingly information. In its reply, the Respondent stated that information held and available on record had been shared with the Appellant in compliance with the earlier direction of the Commissions. Furthermore, payment of battery of the companies' car had also been made to the applicant by Indusind Bank cheque dt 19.06.2017 for Rs 2850/-. During the hearing, the Respondent also conveyed that similar issues had also been heard and adjudicated by the Commission in CIC/UIICL/A/2017/167414-BJ dt. 08.01.2019. The Respondent also assured to forward a copy of their written submission dated 22.04.2020 to the Appellant on his email id ([email protected]) The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 21.04.2020 wherein it was inter alia stated that the Respondent were actually holding existing and available information but due to their malafide intention were avoiding to provide the same. It was therefore requested to issue necessary instructions/ order to Respondents to provide the called for information and also impose a penalty of Rs. 250/- per day from date of order against the C.P.I.O., Appellate Authority and erring official of the Respondent Public Authority who had not given the information within time and knowingly gave incorrect and misleadingly information.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 22.04.2020 wherein while referring to point no 05 of the earlier order of the Commission it was stated that the payment of battery of the companies' car had already been paid to applicant by Indusind Bank cheque dt 19.06.2017 for Rs 2850/- against car no UP-BJ-4012 belonging to Mr. T.C. Sadhwani in compliance of earlier CIC order dt 12/01/2017. Thereafter, on receipt of the Registry of IC (BJ) letter dt 13.06.2019, they had informed & sent letter vide ref:LRO/RTI/ 73/2018-19 & various mail to concerned office i.e. our Divisional Office-2, Lucknow for immediate compliance. In the receipt of final /last reply on 03.07.2018 from concerned office i.e. our Divisional Office-2, Lucknow, they had given their response to the Commission & RTI applicant vide letter dt. 03.07.2018 intimating the non availability of records &aforementioned payment status. While referring to an earlier decision of the Commission in CIC/UIICL/A/2017/167414-BJ dt. 08.01.2019 exemption u/s Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005 Page 2 of 6 was claimed as the information sought by RTI applicant pertained to year 2007-08 & 2008-09 i.e. more than 12 years old which had made it very difficult for them to trace such old records.
We had already spent numerous man hours and diverted the resources of public authority just to provide as much information as available with them. In this regard a reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court inthe case of C.B.S.E vs Aditya Bandopadhyaywas made.Keeping in view of the above facts it was requested to the Commission to take the note of the same and dismiss the hearing & give suitable directions/instructions to the applicant.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay),wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in KhanapuramGandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, Page 3 of 6 advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"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. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter ofHansiRawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 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 forum. 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."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had 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 Page 4 of 6 confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of ShobhaVijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
With regard to the imposition of penalty on the CPIO/PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court inW.P.(C) 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies &Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg &Anr. (delivered on:
01.06.2012) wherein it was held:
" 61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to ful fill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."Page 5 of 6
Similarly, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court inBhagat Singh v. CIC &Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
The Appellant could not substantiate his claims regarding malafide denial of information by the Respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause. DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions cited above, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the instant matter. The Respondent was however, advised to endorse a copy of their written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant, as well through email, as agreed.
The non compliance application stands disposed accordingly.
BimalJulka (िबमल जु का)
Chief Information Commissioner (मु यसूचनाआयु )
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: 24.04.2020
Page 6 of 6