Central Information Commission
Shri Narinder Singh Nagpal vs Cantonment Board, Meerut on 6 October, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2007/00545, 547-48 & 551 all dated 25.4.2007 & CIC/WB/A/2007/00791 to
793; all dated 1.6.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Narinder Singh Nagpal, Meerut
Respondent - Cantonment Board, Meerut
Facts:
These are seven appeals/complains made before us by Shri Narinder Singh Nagpal of Lal Kurti, Meerut Cantt. against Shri Harish Chopra, CPIO Office of the Cantonment Board, Meerut Cantt.
1. FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2007/00545 By his application of 18.1.07 Shri Nagpal sought the following information from CPIO, Cantonment Board:
"Intimate as to whether necessary procedure was followed for appointing Shri Anuj Kumar as AE (Civil) in accordance with law after above High Court order, specifically mentioning the numbers of candidates invited for interview stating therein their qualifications and experience. Please provide the copy thereof along with Board Resolution."
To this he received a response dated 17.2.07 from CPIO refusing the information u/s 8(1) (j) as follows:
"It is to inform you that order and findings of the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad annexed by you along with your application under reference are very much clear and specific. Further, the information asked for vide application under reference is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005 read with Code of Practice on Access to Information Govt of UP Part II (8)."
Shri Nagpal then moved his first appeal before First Appellate Authority / CEO Meerut Cantt on 13.3.07 pleading that "As per section 41 (new 43) and section 42(new 44) of Cantonment Act the entire Board Proceedings are open to public for inspection free of charges by any inhabitant of cantonment, and its 1 mandatory that its authenticated copies be made available to the person requesting the same."
However, First Appellate Authority / CEO Meerut Cantt in his order of 11.4.07 held as follows:
"I have carefully perused the matter. Since the information concerning the employee being exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 and orders of Hon'ble High Court also. However, certain provisions of Cantonment. Act were also quoted although no application was filed under the provisions of Cantt Act."
Nevertheless, the appeal was 'dismissed'. The appellant's prayer before us is as below:
"Please issue necessary orders to CPIO/Appellate Authority to provide copy of Board Resolution and procedure followed in accordance with law for appointing Shri Anuj Singh as AE (Civil) after order of Hon'ble High Court, specifically mentioning the numbers of candidates invited for interview stating therein their qualifications and experience. Also impose penalty of Rs. 250/- each day for deliberately denial of information."
In response to our appeal notice CPIO Meerut Cantt has reported that the ACPIO Shri Anuj Singh is third party and has complained of appellant Shri Nagpal "mentally torturing and harassing him"
2. FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2007/00547 In his application of 17.1.07 Shri Nagpal has sought the following information from the CPIO, Meerut Cantt. Board:
"Please provide detailed list of works carried out under maintenance head and original head separately for the period/ years 2001-2002 to 2006-2007 till date."
To this he received a response on 15.2.07 inviting him to inspect the records as below:
2"The information asked by you is available in the concerned registers prepared under Cantt Account Code 1925 which may be inspected by you for the purpose of obtaining the information required by you during working hours on any working day."
Appellant has then moved his First Appeal on 15.3.07 pleading that, "The CPIO is deliberately with holding information to cause wrongful loss to the public." However, in his order of 12.4.07, CEO Meerut Cantt, First Appellate Authority has directed as follows:
"I have carefully perused the matter and found that CPIO has not denied to provide the information. CPIO has plead that Cantt Board office is ready to provide information which is available in the concerned files and Register of works of the respective financial years, the appellant may inspect these files and work registers and obtain requisite copies of information during working hours on working day. I, therefore, direct the CPIO to allow the appellant to inspect the concerned files/ registers of works of the respective financial year and to provide him copies of such documents out of the files/ registers as appellant may desire within 15 days on payment of such fee/ charges as admissible."
In this case appellant's prayer before us is as below:
"Please issue necessary orders to CPIO/ Appellate Authority to provide required information without delay and impose penalty of Rs. 250/- each day for deliberately denial of information."
3. FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2007/00548 In his application of 17.1.07 appellant Shri Nagpal has sought the following information from CPIO Meerut Cantt. Board:
"Provide copy of such Meerut Cantonment Board Resolution for recommending the name of Shri Anuj Singh for up gradation from the post of AE (Civil) to Executive Engineer with Agenda."
To this information was refused by a response of CPIO dated 15.2.07 as follows:
"It is to inform you that the information asked for vide application under reference is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005 read with Code of Practice on Access to Information, Govt. of UP Part II (8)."3
Aggrieved with this response Shri Nagpal moved his first appeal before the CEO Meerut Cantt. Board on 12.3.07 only to receive the following orders dated 11.4.07 from the First Appellate Authority and CEO:
"I have carefully perused the matter. Since the information concerning the employee being exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 however, certain provisions of Cantonment Act were also quoted although no application was filed under the provisions of Cantt Act."
Appellant's prayer before us in this case is as below:
"Please issue necessary orders to CPIO/ Appellate Authority to provide required information without delay and impose penalty of Rs. 250/- each day for deliberately denial of information."
4. FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2007/00551 In this case the information sought from CPIO on 15.1.07 was as follows:
"Please provide copy of Meerut Cantonment Board Resolution for recommending the post of Executive Engineer as Gazetted post of Shri Anuj Singh and copy of letter by which Director Defence Estate, Central Command, Lucknow rejecting the such recommendations for making the post of Meerut Cantonment Executive Engineer of Shri Anuj Singh as Gazetted."
As in the earlier cases quoted, this information was also refused u/s 8(1) (j) read with Code of Practice to Access Information, Govt. of U.P. Appellant has then moved his First Appeal before CEO / FAA Meerut Cantt. Board on 12.3.07 upon which First Appellate Authority in his order of 11.4.07 has decided as follows:
"I have carefully perused the matter. Since the information concerning the employee being exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 however, certain provisions of Cantonment Act were also quoted although no application was filed under the provisions of Cantt Act."
Appellant's prayer before us in his second appeal, in this case is as follows:
"Please issue necessary directions to CPIO to provide copy of Board Resolution for recommending the post of Executive Engineer as gazetted post of Shri Anuj Singh and copy of 4 letter of Director, Defence Estate, Central Command rejecting the such recommendations for making the post of Meerut Cantonment Executive Engineer of Shri Anuj Singh as Gazetted and impose penalty of Rs. 250/- each day for deliberately denial of information."
Whereas three of the above four cases concern the appointment of Shri Anuj Singh as Asstt. Engineer (Civil), the remaining cases pertain to the working of the Cantonment Board.
5. FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2007/00791 In this case Shri Nagpal has sought the following information from the CPIO in a request of 22.1.07:
"Provide copy of Measurement Book fore repair of Boundary Wall of Gandhi Bagh carried out after March 1999 and details of disposal of old iron railing."
To this he received a response of 20.2.07 providing only part of the information, with part refused as follows:
"Measurement Book is not specifically defined under the definition of information under section 2 (f) of RTI Act 2005.
It is further informed to you that old iron railings recovered from outer boundary wall have been installed inside Gandhi Bagh around Cricket Ground, Children Park, Terakota."
Appellant has then moved his first appeal before the CEO / FAA of Meerut Cantt. Board on 12.3.07 upon which FAA has allowed the appeal and directed as follows:
"I have carefully perused the matter and direct the CPIO to provide the copies of Measurement Book of Boundary wall of Gandhi Bagh after March 1999 including copies of Measurement Book of disposal of old iron railings of Gandhi Bagh 1 to the appellant within 30 days of payment of charges as per provisions of RTI Act 2005. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.' 1 Emphasis ours 5 After this appellant has moved his second appeal before us the substance of which pleads that the orders of the FAA have not been complied with, and praying as follows:
"Please issue necessary orders to CPIO/ Appellate Authority to provide required information without delay and impose penalty of Rs. 250/- each day for deliberately denial of information. Also issue directions to initiate disciplinary action against CPIO Shri Harish Chopra."
In his response to our appeal notice, the CPIO Meerut Cantt. has pleaded as follows:
"In compliance of orders of the 1st Appellate Authority, the CPIO vide letter No. RTIA-2005/274/Appeal No. 80 dated 11.05.2007 requested the appellant to inspect all the documents as desired by him and to take out extract/ copies as he wishes to have within 30 days as per provisions of clause (b) of sub section 3 of the section 7 of RTI Act 2005 but the appellant again did not respond and filed the present appeal before the Hon'ble CIC."
6. FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2007/00792 In his request of 18.1.07 Shri Nagpal has sought the following information from the CPIO:
"You are requested please provide copy of STOCK BOOK maintained for beautification work for the period/ years 1999-2000 to 2006-2007 till date."
Upon this he has received a response on 17.2.07 from CPIO who while expressing that he was, "Willing to obey all the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 in letter and spirit," has invited appellant Shri Nagpal to inspect the records as follows:
"The concerned stock books are available in this office which may be inspected by you for the purpose of obtaining the information required by you during working hours on any working day."
In this case appellant moved his first appeal on 12.3.07 upon which Appellate Authority, CEO Meerut Cantt. ordered as follows:
6"I have carefully perused the matter and direct the CPIO to provide the copies of stock Books of Beautification works in the Cantt area for the period/ years 1999-2000 to 2006-2007 till date to the appellant within 30 days on payment of charges as per provisions of RTI Act 2005."
However, pleading non compliance regarding which he had earlier submitted a letter to the CEO on 17.5.07, appellant has moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"Please issue necessary orders to CPIO/ Appellate Authority to provide required information without delay and impose penalty of Rs. 250/- each day for deliberately denial of information. Also issue directions to initiate disciplinary action against CPIO Shri Harish Chopra."
In this case the response of the CPIO to the appeal notice is as below:
"In compliance of orders of the 1st Appellate Authority, the CPIO vide letter No. RTIA-2005/274/Appeal No. 83 dated 11.05.2007 requested the appellant to inspect all the documents as desired by him and to take out extract/ copies as he wishes to have within 30 days as per provisions of clause (b) of sub section 3 of the section
7 of RTI Act 2005 but the appellant again did not respond and filed the present appeal before the Hon'ble CIC."
7. FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2007/00793 In this case Shri Nagpal has made the following request to CPIO in his application of 17.1.07:
"Please provide copy of Measurement Book of replacement/ repair of water supply line in Lal Kurti in the years 2002-2003 and 2003- 2004 and detail of payments made."
To this he received a response dated 15.2.07 as follows:
"Measurement Book is not specifically defined under the definition of information under section 2 (f) of RTI Act 2005.
Further it is to inform you that repair/ replacement of water supply pipe lines in Lalkurti Area of Meerut Cantt was carried out only in the year 2002-2003 and not in year 2003-2004. the details of locations of works and payment made during 2002-20036 in lalkurti area as available, is furnished as under:-7
S. No. Particulars Payment made
1. In BI Bara Bazar to Maida Mohalla and Karai Ganj Ward No. 3 Rs. 6, 23,650.00
2. In Jaman Mohalla ward No. 3 Rs. 2, 65,654.03
3. New Borewell Handia Mohalla to Lal kurti Bara Bazar Main line.
Bakri Mohalla to main market and in Bara Bazar Ward No. 2 Rs. 7, 14,634.53
4. JN Suriwali Road to Kothi No. 5 Ghosi Mohalla, Masjid Ghosi Mohalla Near Kabristan near Butchery Road Ward No. 2. Rs. 8, 25,344.79
5. From Jaman Mohalla pump house to overhead tank raising mains. Rs. 1, 46,388.32
6. Jaman Mohalla OHT to Dr. Brijesh Shop. Rs. 5, 88,339.31 Since he had received only part of the information sought, appellant moved his first appeal before the F.A.A. on 133.07 to receive an order of CEO in his favour dated 11.4.07, as follows:
"Direct the CPIO to provide the copies of Measurement Book of work of repair/ replacement of water supply pipe lines in Lalkurti Area during the year 2002-2003 to the appellant 2 within 30 days on payment to charges as per provisions of RTI Act 2005."
In this case too the plea is again of non compliance which was brought to the attention of FAA in appellant's letter dated 17.5.07 addressed to the CEO. Appellant's prayer before us, therefore, is again as below:
"Please issue necessary orders to CPIO/ Appellate Authority to provide required information without delay and impose penalty of Rs. 250/- each day for deliberately denial of information. Also issue directions to initiate disciplinary action against CPIO Shri Harish Chopra."
In this case the response to our appeal notice by CPIO is once more as below:
2Emphasis ours 8 "In compliance of orders of the 1st Appellate Authority, the CPIO vide letter No. RTIA-2005/274/Appeal No. 85 dated 11.05.2007 requested the appellant to inspect all the documents as desired by him and to take out extract/ copies as he wishes to have within 30 days as per provisions of clause (b) of sub section 3 of the section 7 of RTI Act 2005 but the appellant again did not respond and filed the present appeal before the Hon'ble CIC. "
The appeal was heard by video conference on 6.10.2008. The following are present in the hearing:
Appellant at CIC Studio, New Delhi Shri Narinder Singh Nagpal Respondents at NIC Studio, Meerut.
Shri Anuj Singh, Executive Engineer Shri Harish Chopra, CPIO Shri Sudhir Kumar, Asstt.
At the opening of the hearing, appellant Shri Nagpal submitted that he had infact received the information sought in File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00548 through a different application. However, with regard to the remaining applications he accused the Cantonment Board of being unfriendly to RTI applicants and even when information was readily available, they would normally take recourse to inviting the applicants for inspection without any facilities being provided to enable him to access the record sought. It was for this reason that he has not accepted their offer which is not justifiable u/s 7(9) since the information sought is not of such a nature that arranging to provide it would cause disproportionate diversion of resources of Cantonment Board. He, therefore, prayed that penalties be imposed on the CPIO to discourage such unfriendly responses in the future. CPIO Shri Harish Chopra on the other hand supported by Shri Anuj Singh, Executive Engineer argued that Shri Nagpal had no standing in the area of the Cantonment Board and, therefore, was not an authentic applicant under the RTI Act.
Shri Anuj Singh, Executive Engineer submitted that the correspondence of Government regarding the post of Assistant Engineer was on the question of its 9 being equated with PWD Circle. His post, therefore, required to be equated with that of EE PWD and it is on that subject that there had been exchange of correspondence.
DECISION NOTICE These cases fall under two categories -
(1) the cases where information has been sought with regard to Executive Engineer Shri Anuj Singh, employed by the Cantonment Board, Meerut. These have generally been denied u/s 8(1) (j), and (2) the second category is that where information has been sought but not refused. However, the information has been offered not in the form in which it has been asked for but through file inspection. In the latter cases, this offer has been repeated despite the orders of the F.A.A. and CEO that the information actually be provided.
In File Nos. CIC/WB/A/2007/00545, 548 & 551 the information that has been sought concerns correspondence with regard to the post of Asstt. Engineer (Civil) occupied by Engineer Shri Anuj Singh 3 . However, since all these concern the appointment and upgradation of an official working in the public sector against a particular public post, it is clear that this cannot be construed as private activity and must indeed be treated as a public activity, therefore, becoming disclosable under the RTI Act, 2005, notwithstanding any Cantt Board rules to the contrary. In this case in his response to our appeal notice, CPIO Meerut Cantt. Board has submitted as follows:
"It is further submitted that Shri Anuj Singh, ACPIO (3rd party) has submitted his comments to the appeal who has stated that the appellant is the General Secretary of a unregistered/ illegally run society Cantt Residents Welfare Society in an un-authorized bungalow of the Cantonment. The appellant has got no locus standee. Neither he is employee of the Board nor is in line of appointment/ promotion. Further, the appellant has not annexed 3 mentioned as 'Anuj Kumar' in some applications as in File No. CIC/WB/.A/2007/00545, whereas in others he has been mentioned as Anuj Singh, as in File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00550 10 any document to show public interest, need etc to support his ground of appeal.
Shri Anuj Singh, ACPIO (3rd party) has fu8rther submitted that the above named person (appellant) is mentally torturing and harassing him (ACPIO) for last 3 years. He deliver the letters against him by asking his personal information regarding his appointment, confirmation, up gradation etc, which have been done by the competent authorities from time to time after 1995 i.e. approx 14 years back and the general public has no concern with it as no public interest is involved. The appellant files such applications and then withdrew the same for pressurizing/harassing/blackmailing."
This argument is clearly not acceptable in light of our observation above. The information sought in all these cases will, therefore, be provided to appellant within fifteen working days from the date of issue of this Decision Notice. However, since the information has initially been refused through a genuine interpretation of the law, in itself nascent at the time of disposing of these applications, we cannot construe that there has been a malafide attempt to refuse the information and there will, therefore, be no penalty.
In the remaining cases, we find that the orders of the F.A.A. have not been complied with and instead a fresh offer for inspection of the record given to the appellant when the orders of the Appellate Authority are quire clear in setting aside the orders of CPIO and directing that the copies of the documents be supplied. Nor, in our view are these documents of such a nature that would merit invoking the exception mentioned in Sec. 7(9) since that section specifically asks that information "shall normally be provided in the form in which it is sought".
From the facts above, it appears that this is a case of malafide denial of Information by the CPIO. However since it is the responsibility of the First Appellate Authority to ensure that the orders passed by it are duly complied with by the PIO, the Commission, therefore, has decided to remand the case back to the first Appellate Authority, CEO Cant Board to ensure that his orders under section 19(1) are duly complied with and the requested information 11 furnished in terms of the order so passed, with the qualification that now, in accordance with Sec 7(6) of the RTI Act, 2005, no fees will be charged.
If the compliance is not ensured within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, the FAA should approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under section 20 of the RTI Act for imposition of penalty and/or recommending appropriate disciplinary action. This will be without prejudice to the right of the First AA to initiate other penal action under the Indian Penal Code against the PIO for willful violation of lawful orders promulgated by a public servant while exercising statutory powers.
The following appeals are, therefore, allowed but without cost:
1. CIC/WB/A/2007/00545
2. CIC/WB/A/2007/00548
3. CIC/WB/A/2007/00551 Besides, the following appeals/complaints are remanded to the First Appellate Authority / CEO Meerut Cantonment Board to ensure compliance with his orders:
1. CIC/WB/A/2007/00547
2. CIC/WB/A/2007/00791
3. CIC/WB/A/2007/00792
4. CIC/WB/A/2007/00793 Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 6.10.2008 12 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 6.10.2008 13