Central Information Commission
Rajwanth T N vs Dr. Ambedkar Foundation on 8 March, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DRAMF/A/2023/607461
Shri Rajwanth T N ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Dr. Ambedkar Foundation ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.03.2024
Date of Decision : 08.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.01.2023
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : 06.02.2023
First Appellate Order on : 09.02.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.01.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"I, Rajwanth TN from Bangalore Karnataka, married Suma Madhavan from Kannur, Kerala on 17/02/2019. I belong to SC category (Adi Karnataka) and my wife belongs to Open category (Varriar).
We applied for Dr. Ambedkar Scheme for Social Integration through Inter-Caste Marriage benefit within 1yr of marriage (one of the prerequisites). Since SWD Karnataka Bangalore branch refused to help/guide to acquire Recommendation letter from DC/DM office in Bangalore even after numerous approaches, we emailed to DAF on 21/12/2019 (attached) seeking help on the same. But we never got any reply.
We sent application to DAF and application was received by Foundation on 27/01/2020 i.e., within one year of marriage.
We sent the hard copy of application and documents thrice, 1st in January 2020, 2nd in March 2021 & 3rd in July 2022.
DAF after examining application, sent acknowledgment/recommendation request letter to DC office in Bir in June 2020. We kept visiting DC office in Bir whenever possible as there were Covid restrictions. However letter was misplaced by DC office staff.
Since the document could not be found, we requested DAF to send another acknowledgment/recommendation request letter to DC office in Blr. DAF then sent Page 1 of 4 attached acknowledgment letter F.No. 37-153/2021/DAF dated 01/04/2021 to DC office in Bir.
We constantly visited DC office and were directed to SWD Bangalore to get NOC and then back to DC office. It took almost a year to get the recommendation letter from DC office.
The DC recommendation letter was sent from DC office Bangalore to DAF in Feb 2022.
We contacted DAF again numerous times to know the status of our application. We received reply from DAF on 24/11/2022 that our application doesn'tmeet the eligibility criteria of sending application within one year of marriage. Please note that point 3 of the acknowledgment F.No. 37-153/2021/DAF dated 01/04/2021 to DC office states: The Foundation has received a proposal on 27/01/2020 (within one year of the marriage of couple) from Shri Rajwanth T N and Smt Suma Madhavan of Bangalore South. On examining the paper, this office has found that the proposal needs recommendation of the concerned authority as such, it is being sent out to your office with the request that your comments/recommendation on the proposal may please be forwarded to office so that it can be processed for further.
DAF would not have sent the acknowledgment letter if we didnt meet eligibility criteria. So, to state that application was not received within one year of marriage is inaccurate.
Please note that DAF had sent recommendation letter to DC office twice without above said criteria issue. It can't be a mistake.
We have put so much of our time & money in getting the recommendation letter from DC office Bangalore as DAF had sent letter to DC office. Rules for the scheme may have changed over the period. We want DAF to abide by the rules/ t&c when the application was sent and to release the incentive as per the scheme."
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.02.2023. The FAA vide order dated 09.02.2023 held as under:-
"......The scheme is available in the public domain/website i.e. www.ambedkarfoundation.nic.in. Even though the applicant states that it was acknowledged by DAF but documents were lacking for the DC office signature hence not meeting the reports. This was intimated repeatedly."
An email communication dated 24.11.2022 was found attached which read as under:
2. The application of the couple was put up to the committee constituted to check the proposals received from 2014 to 2021.
3. The committee checked and found that the Date of Marriage of couple was 17.02.2019 and the recommendation of DC was of 05.02.2022.
4. Hence not meeting the eligibility criteria as per Para 5 of Part III (Eligibility) of the Scheme wherein the application to be submitted in the office within one year of marriage. Thus same cannot be accepted as per the extant guidelines of the Scheme.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 2 of 4Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 01.03.2024 has been received from CPIO which states as under:
As per the guidelines of the Scheme, an inter-caste marriage means a marriage in which one of the spouses belongs to Scheduled Caste and the other belongs to a Non- Scheduled Caste. The marriage should be valid as per the law duly registered under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and the Proposal would be treated as valid if submitted within one year of marriage. The complete proposal needs to be recommended by an MP/MLA and to be forwarded to the Foundation through the concerned District Magistrate/ District Collector/ Welfare Department with their comments/recommendations. State
(ii) On scrutiny, it has been found that your application has not been submitted in the office within one year of marriage and thus not meeting the eligibility criteria as per Para 5 of Part III (Eligibility) and as such the same cannot be accepted as per the extant guidelines of the Scheme. The requisite reply already furnished vide letter dt. 28.02.2023. (Copy enclosed)
(iii) The delay/process could not be finalized due to above reasons of without Prejudices. Inter Caste Marriage Scheme of Dr. Ambedkar Foundation has been merged with the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for implementation of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 run by D/o Social Justice & Empowerment with effect from 01 April, 2023 (copy enclosed). All Inter Caste Marriage Cases are requested to apply through the procedures of Social Welfare Department of respective State Govt/UT for protection of Civil Right Act, 1955, Scheme being run by Govt. of India/State Govt & UT.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Singh - Consultant was present during hearing. Both parties are heard and reiterated their respective contentions as mentioned in the documents hereinabove. The Respondent placed reliance on the written submission stating that the Appellant had been duly informed vide reply dated 28.02.2023 that his application had not been received in the office within one year of marriage and thus it did not meet the eligibility criteria as per Para 5 of Part III (Eligibility) and as such the same cannot be accepted as per the extant guidelines of the Scheme.
However, the Appellant contended that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent and seeks redressal of his grievance since the application had been sent on time by them. Lack of know how of the procedure at the State level led to the delay in submission of the same by the State authorities before the DAF. But for no fault of theirs, the Appellant's application had been rejected. The Respondent present during hearing stated that if the Appellant submits all the necessary documents before them, they may revisit the issue and try to find an amicable solution, outside the purview of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveals that the Respondent had duly furnished response to the Appellant, on the basis of information available on record with the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In view of the Page 3 of 4 aforementioned fact, no legal infirmity is found in the action of the PIO. Since grievance redressal or dispute resolution does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act, no further action can be directed, under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya(हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4