Central Information Commission
Mr.Harinder Dhingra vs Export Credit Guarantee Corporation Of ... on 30 August, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001822,
CIC/SS/A/2012/001823 &
CIC/SS/A/2012/001828
Dated: 30.08.2013
Name of Appellant : Shri Harinder Dhingra
Name of Respondent : Export Credit Guarantee Corporation
of India Ltd., Mumbai.
Date of Hearing : 18.02.2013/11.06.2013
ORDER
Shri Harinder Dhingra, hereinafter called the appellant, has filed the present three identical appeals each dated 31.3.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (ECGC), Mumbai for not providing information on Point No. 6, 16 and 20 in response to his three RTI-applications each dated 15.4.2011.
2. The matter was heard by the Commission on 18.2.2013. The appellant had submitted before the Commission that the respondent public authority has miserably failed to implement the provisions of the RTI Act. The CPIO is gaining time by asking for time to collect the information which he does not give even after 500 days and has quoted Sections of the RTI Act to seek exemptions for disclosure of information despite innumerable decisions of the Commission. The FAA does not decide the appeals filed under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act at all what to talk of adhering to the mandatory time period. The FAA treats the implementation of the RTI Act in a most shabby manner and with utmost 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001822, CIC/SS/A/2012/001823 & CIC/SS/A/2012/001828 contempt. The Commission vide its interim order dated 17.4.2013 held as follows: "In so far as delay on the part of the respondent in furnishing reply to the appellant is concerned, the Commission gets the impression that RTI matters are not being properly attended to in the ECGC, Mumbai. The ECGC, Mumbai is the Corporate Head Office of the public authority, where all senior officers including the CMD are placed. The Commission, therefore, draws the attention of Shri N. Shankar, CMD, ECGC to the state of affairs in respect of RTI matters. In the present three appeals, the three RTI applications dated 15.4.2011 were replied to by the CPIO. Upon being aggrieved by the CPIO's reply, the appellant filed first appeals in each case before Ms. Geeta Muralidhar, ED/FAA, ECGC each dated 1.6.2011. However, these remained unanswered whereas Section 19(6) of the RTI Act provides as follows: "An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing". The appellant thereafter filed complaints before the Commission and there were directions issued by the Commission in Case No. CIC/SS/C/2011/001970, 001972 and 001967 dated 2.2.2012 to the FAA to reply to the appellant which, however, were not acted upon by the FAA. The FAA has acted upon the directions of the Commission during the second week of February, 2013 i.e. only after receipt of notice for hearing on 18.2.2013. Reportedly, no officer was designated FAA in the Organization for some time. The RTI Act is a legislation enacted by the Parliament for the purpose of bringing transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and the citizens have right to receive replies/information within the time frame specified under the RTI Act. Persons heading the Organization are expected to see that statutory authorities like CPIO/FAA are in place and there should not be a gap in filling up the posts of CPIO/FAA. The Commission hereby directs the public authority to take all measures to ensure smooth disposal of RTI applications/appeals. In so far as failure of the FAA to discharge his duties as FAA, the Commission hereby directs the present FAA to ascertain how the then 3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001822, CIC/SS/A/2012/001823 & CIC/SS/A/2012/001828 FAA failed to respond to the appellant even after directions of the Commission and to submit his report to the Commission within four weeks of receipt of this order".
3. In so far as appellant's request for information to queries 6, 16 and 20 of the RTI application is concerned, the Commission in its Interim Order dated 17.4.2013 held as follows: "7.In so far as providing information to the appellant in reply to his queries at Point No. 6, 16 and 20 of the RTI application is concerned, the Commission is of the view that information on Point No. 16 has now been provided by the FAA to the appellant. Information sought at Point No. 20 pertaining to leave records is disclosable information which however the FAA has denied. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide requisite information on Point No. 20 of the RTI application to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order. 8. As far as information relating to Point No. 6 regarding immovable/ movable properties is concerned, the Commission vide its Division Bench order dated 22.2.2010 in the matter of Shri P.P. Rajeev Vs. Cochin Port Trust in case No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00707 held as follows: "32. We, therefore, reiterate that there cannot be an omnibus order about the disclosure of all immovable assetsrelated information of employees of public authorities. The Government or the public authorities may frame rules about disclosure of this class of information held by them as filed by their employees, but till such time as these Rules are framed and, the condition of confidentiality in which such information is handed over to the public authority holds good, the request for their disclosure will have to be considered on a casebycase basis under the provisions of Sections 8(1)(j) and 11(1) of the Act. Similarly it shall be open to any public authority or the Government to voluntarily undertake to disclose this variety of Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001822, 4 CIC/SS/A/2012/001823 & CIC/SS/A/2012/001828 information, fully or in part." Consistent with the aforementioned decision of the Division Bench of the Commission, the CPIO will consider this matter under the provisions of Section 8(1) (j) and/or Section 11(1) of the RTI Act and then take a view as enjoined by either or both sections, which shall be communicated to the appellant in response to his query at Point No. 6 of the RTI application within four weeks of receipt of this order. The directions of the Commission apply to all three cases discussed above."
4. The matter was again heard on 11.06.2013. The appellant was absent whereas the respondent were represented by Shri Vilas Jare, AGM and Shri Gudakesh Kumar, Manager.
5. In compliance with the directions of the Commission in Para 8 of the Interim Order dated 17.4.2013, Shri N. Shankar, CMD, ECGC vide his letter No. ECGC/RTI/05/2013 dated 7.5.2013 submitted his comments as follows:
• He has taken charge as CMD of the ECGC in the month of October, 2011; • As directed, information sought at Point No. 20 (Para 6, Page 5 of the order) pertaining to leave records of the concerned officers have been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 7.5.2013.
• We regret that during the FY 2011-12, some of the applications could not be responded to promptly by the ECGC as it is reported that these applications including some of the CIC communications were not received in the Office. When ECGC received a CIC communication in this regard, ECGC have provided the information to the appellant. He has since issued suitable instructions to the concerned CPIOs to respond to all the points raised by the appellant well in time. ECGC has also strengthened "Inward mail" system to ensure that all correspondences received are attended to promptly. During the FY 2012-13 the ECGC received 156 applications under the RTI Act and all have been disposed of well within the prescribed time limit.
• As per records, one FAA i.e. the Executive Director of the Corporation was designated for the Head Office till August 23, 201 and from August 24, 201 the concerned General Managers have been designated as Appellate Authorities. Information regarding CPIO/AA are displayed on the website of the Corporation and the same is updated from time to time. ECGC are also having a dedicated RTI Department headed by an Assistant General Manager to monitor the implementation of the RTI Act. Further, to sensitize the provisions and importance of the RTI Act, ECGC recently organized a special training programme for officers for the Corporation.5 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001822,
CIC/SS/A/2012/001823 & CIC/SS/A/2012/001828 • The steps recently initiated by the Corporation will ensure strict and timely compliances of the RTI Act and it will be ensured that lapses pointed out by the Commission will not recur in future.
6. In view above submissions of CMD, ECGC that the ECGC has now taken corrective steps to strengthen their RTI Cell and also to designate General Managers as Appellate Authorities. Further, to sensitize the provisions and importance of the RTI Act, the ECGC has recently organized a series of special training programmes for officers of the Corporation. However, the Commission hereby directs the respondent public authority to ensure timely disposal of RTI applications in future.
The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission with above observations.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Shri Harinder Dhingra, D4A/7 D.L.F. Phase 01, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana) The CPIO, Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., "Nirmal" 5th Floor, 241/242, Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.
The First Appellate Authority, Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., "Nirmal" 5th Floor, 241/242, Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point, 6 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001822, CIC/SS/A/2012/001823 & CIC/SS/A/2012/001828 Mumbai-400021.
Shri N. Shankar, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., "Nirmal" 5th Floor, 241/242, Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.