Central Information Commission
Dr Teekam Das Khatri vs Directorate Of General Of Health ... on 31 July, 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.(s):- CIC/NVBDC/A/2017/603701-BJ+
CIC/DTGHS/A/2017/602716-BJ
Dr. Teekam Das Khatri
(E mail: [email protected])
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme
Directorate General of Health Services,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
22, Sham Nath Marg, Landmark I P College
Near Civil Line Metro Station, Delhi - 110054
2. CPIO
Directorate General of Health Services
Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road
New Delhi - 110011
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.03.2019
Date of Decision : 14.03.2019
ORDER
Date of RTI application 23.03.2017
(mentioned in 2nd
Appeal)
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal 26.04.2017
(mentioned in 2nd
Appeal)
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points regarding the file noting and all correspondence in respect of letter dated 29.07.2013 and 06.07.2015 written by Director, National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme, New Delhi to the Deputy Director (Admin.), PH (CDL) Section; file noting and all correspondence relating to MACP given to Senior Research Officer Page 1 of 5 (Group A Non-Medical) of PF monitoring scheme of National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme, New Delhi, etc. Dissatisfied due to non- receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ 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: Dr. Teekam Das Khatri through VC;
Respondent: Dr. Sukhvir Singh, CPIO / Jt. Dir. and Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AO;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information was sought from the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare rather than NVBDC. Although he had received the information from NVBDC but he remained dissatisfied as his queries were addressed to the Ministry only. The Respondent stated that the CPIO / FAA from NVBDC had responded on 19.05.2017 /20.09.2017 respectively on transfer of RTI applications from DGHS. It was informed that Mr. Vikash Sheel was the concerned Joint Secretary looking after this subject matter.
The Commission felt that correct and timely response was 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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 it has held that:
"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."
A reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) wherein it was held 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."Page 2 of 5
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:
"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 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 directs Mr. Vikash Sheel, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare to coordinate with NVBDC and ensure that a suitable reply is sent to the Applicant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeals stand disposed with the above direction.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 14.03.2019
Copy to:
1. Mr. Vikash Sheel, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Room No. 244 A, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi-110011 Page 3 of 5 ADJUNCT ORDER:
Date of Hearing: 30.07.2020 Note: Aggrieved with the reply provided by the Respondent in compliance with the direction of the Commission, the Appellant approached the Commission vide letter dated 4th June, 2019.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Teekam Das Khatri through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AO, Mr. P. S. Rahate, Research Officer, Mr. Bhaskar Sanyal, SO, DGHS and Mr. R. S. Nautiyal, Consultant (DD);
The Appellant referred to the order of the Commission dated 14.03.2019 and stated that the direction contained therein was not satisfactorily complied with by the Public Authority. He further alleged that the information sought was available with the Respondent but the same was malafidely denied to him. Furthermore, he submitted that two financial upgradations were given to SRO and ARO but information was provided for the first upgradations only. Furthermore, information regarding inclusion of 10 posts of Research officer in CHS cadre was also not provided to him on the pretext of untraceable files. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that in pursuance to the direction of the Commission, available information had been shared with the Appellant vide letters dated 26.04.2019 and 17.05.2019. An updated response was also furnished vide letter dated 24.07.2020 which was handed over to the Commission, during the hearing. On being queried by the Commission whether any Court case pending adjudication in the matter, the Appellant replied in the negative but informed that the case filed before CAT, Jaipur, was dismissed as he couldn't substantiate his case due to non-availability of documents. Therefore, he requested the Commission to provide him complete information. The Respondent consistently maintained their earlier submission and stated that the available information had already been provided to the Appellant.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 21st July, 2020 wherein it was inter-alia submitted that the information provided by the Respondent in compliance with the direction of the Commission was incomplete. It was further submitted that he may not attend the meeting on 30.07.2020 due to retinal problem. If his Ophthalmologist permits, he will try to attend the meeting.
The Commission was in receipt of a compliance letter dated 26.04.2019 from the Respondent, DGHS, PH(CDL) Section, addressed to the Appellant in reference to direction given by the Commission vide decision dated 14.03.2019 wherein a point-wise information was provided to the Appellant. He was also requested to deposit Rs. 726/- in Demand Draft in favour of PAO, DGHS for providing 363 pages of information.Page 4 of 5
The Respondent, DGHS, PH (CDL) Section, vide another letter dated 17.05.2019 forwarded the Appellant 374 pages of information (inadvertently mentioned as 363 pages in latter dated 26.04.2019).
During the hearing, the Respondent handed over a copy of written submission dated 24.07.2020 wherein it was submitted that whatever information was available with the CPIO was provided to the Applicant vide letter dated 17.05.2019. In respect of certain information, it was informed that relevant case files being old one were not traceable in the Section. Furthermore, the information received from the Administrative Officer, NVBDCP dated 05.07.2019 was reiterated.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum. The Respondent is however instructed to forward a copy of the written submission dated 24.07.2020 handed over to the Commission to the Appellant 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 (E mail: [email protected]), as agreed.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) K.L. Das (के .एल.दास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 30.07.2020 Page 5 of 5