Central Information Commission
Ms. Radhika Arora vs Central Information Commission (Cic) on 11 June, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint Nos.CIC/WB/C/2008/00859, 862 & 863 all dated 15.9.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Complainant - Ms. Radhika Arora
Respondent - Central Information Commission (CIC)
Facts:
These are three complaints received from Ms. Radhika Arora of Dilshad Colony, Delhi against the information provided to her by CPIO Shri Tarun Kumar, Jt. Secretary & Addl Registrar, Central Information Commission.
FILE NO. CIC/WB/C/2008/00859 By an application of 4.8.08 Ms. Arora has sought the following information:
"1. Copy of the register where the Commission records complaints of non-compliance received from public.
2. If no such register exists, kindly provide the list of all cases where complaints have been received. List should contain following details.
a) Copy of Complaint.
b) Action taken thereupon.
c) Please provide copy of order, where cases have been
disposed off. Please provide copies off order sheets where the case was disposed off without a hearing through the order sheet only."
Upon this she received the following response from Shri Tarun Kumar JS dated 11.8.08:
1. The Commission does not maintain any Register for non-
compliance cases. All non-compliance cases are linked to the original decision files and are processed from that file only.
2. the Commission does not maintain any list of such complaints. You may, however, indicate any specific file no. or detail of complaint of non-compliance so that we can provide you an access to the file by inspection."
1Not satisfied, however, Ms. Arora has moved a complaint before us with the following prayer :
"1. Order the PIO to provide me the desired information.
2. Impose a monetary penalty under section 20 (1) and
3. Recommend for disciplinary action for repeated violation in three of my own cases under the service rules provided in section 20 (2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.' The reason for her dissatisfaction is explained as follows:
"I am not satisfied by the kind of reply of the CPIO as the said reply is not complete and evasive to my application. This is the basic information, which the Commission should compile. Cases of non- compliance of the orders of the Central Information Commission. Any casual approach will seriously jeopardise the legislative intent of the promulgation of RTI Act, 2005."
FILE NO. CIC/WB/C/2008/00862 In this case by an application also of 4.8.08 Ms. Arora sought the following information from CPIO Shri Tarun Kumar, Jt. Secretary and Additional Registrar:
"1. Copy of penalty register or any such register maintained by the Commission to keep a record of all the show cause notices issued by the Commission to various officials and action taken thereupon.
2. If no such register is maintained, kindly provide a list of all cases in which show cause notices have been issued by the Commission so far, date of issue of notice and action taken thereupon i.e. whether the penalty was imposed or dropped."
Upon this Ms Arora received the following response dated 20.8.08 from CPIO Shri Tarun Kumar :
'1. No penalty register is maintained by the Commission to showing the records of all the show cause notices issued in the Commission. The show cause notices are issued from individual files and all the correspondence regarding respective show cause notices are maintained on respective files.
2. The commission does not maintain any such list of case of show cause notices. Therefore to prepare any such 2 information regarding show cause notices, thousand of files would have to be checked which would certainly divert the resources of the Commission in disproportionate manner in terms of section 7 (9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
However, in case, you require list of penalty imposed, the same can be made available which runs into 16 pages. You may, therefore, deposit. (16x2=Rs.32) through an IPO/DD or cash in favour of "Accounts Officer, Central Information Commission, New Delhi". Once you send the IPO of Rs. 32/- photocopies will be provided to you.
However, if you wish to examine any particular file/s in this context, you may intimate the same to the undersigned so that the files can be made available for inspection at mutually convenient date and time."
Ms Arora's prayer in complaint is as follows:
"1. Order the PIO to provide me the desired information.
2. Impose a monetary penalty under section 20 (1) and
3. Recommend for disciplinary action for repeated violation in three of my own cases under the service rules provided in section 20 (2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.' In this case her dissatisfaction stems from the following:
"I am not satisfied by the kind of reply of the CPIO as the said reply is not complete and evasive to my application. This is the basic information, which the commission should maintain. Issuing show cause notices and imposing of penalty are the most important directions of the Central Information Commission. This is the penal provision that makes one answerable and accountable to the people of India in the Right to Information Act, 2005.
FILE NO. CIC/WB/C/2008/00863 Appellant's request in this case again through an application of 4.8.08 is with regard to complaints received against Central Information Commissioners as follows:
"1. Copy of the complaint.
2. Copies of letters through which the complaint was forwarded to the President, DOPT, PMO and various other ministries for action.3
3. has explanation been sought from the respective commissioner(s) on the complaint received against him? If yes, please provide a copy of the letter requesting the commissioner for an explanation and the subsequent explanation provided by him.
4. If the complaint had been forwarded to various ministries or other authorities, then provide the response received by the Commission from them so far? If no response has been received, did the Commission send any reminder as a follow up? If no, why? What does Commission propose to do now?
5. What action has been taken on each complaint so far? Please provide a copy of all the documents including file notings that describe the action taken upon each complaint. Provide the action taken report for each complaint.' To this Ms Arora received a response dated 3.9.08 from CPIO Shri Tarun Kumar as follows:
'1. There is no such file separately maintained by the Commission in which copies of complaints are placed. However, the complaints are received by the Commission due to dissatisfaction of the decision passed by CIC/ICs in a particular case. They are placed in the same case file in which the concerned Commissioner decided the appeal/ complaint. However, no such data of such complaints is maintained, culling out this information from various files will certainly disproportionately divert the resources of the Commission. Nevertheless, you may indicate the specific complaint file/s or the case number for which inspection can be arranged and if you desire, photocopies of the documents can be supplied after inspection of such records.
2. No such letter has been written by the Commission through which the complaint has been forwarded to the Hon'ble President, DOPT, PMO and various other Ministries for action.
3. As indicated in Para 1 when the complaints are received they replaced on respective case files and dealt therein. The said case is placed before the Commissioner/CIC for comments and action is taken accordingly now, providing details of such comments will disproportionately divert the resources of the Commission as each and every such file will have to be located and examined.4
4. In view of 2 above question does not arise.
5. You may please specify any such complaint with case numbers so that the same could be made available to you for inspection."
Whereas her prayer in complaint before us is identical to the above two, Ms Arora's dissatisfaction in this case is expressed in the following words:
"I am not satisfied by the kind of reply of the CPIO as the said reply is not complete and evasive to my application. Cases of complaints against the Central Information Commissioners have to be dealt according to the due procedure on the subject. Receiving like an ordinary matter and putting in the concerned file is like treating them as non-entity and something not to be seriously seen through. Any causal approach like this speaks in volume that how our Central Information Commission is functioning in contravention to the set principles and procedures laid down on the subject matter."
The appeals were heard on 11.6.09. Only respondent Shri Tarun Kumar, Addl Registrar CVC is present. In all three complaints Ms. Arora has requested that "I would like to be present in person or being represented by an authorized person to the Commission in all the hearings and proceedings in the matter. Therefore, I request the Commission to give a notice of the proceedings in the matter." However, although notice was issued to her dated 28th April, 2009, complainant Ms. Arora has opted not to be present.
DECISION NOTICE Having examined the record and heard the respondent we find that such information as is held by this Commission has been provided to complainant Ms. Arora. Sec. 2(j), which defines the Right to Information, is explicit in that it mandates disclosure of the following u/s 2(J) :
2(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 1 and includes the right to--
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;1
Emphasis added 5
(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;
The law therefore requires that such information as exists may be provided. In light of the above, the plea for either imposition of penalty or disciplinary action is misplaced and the prayer in all three complaints unsustainable under the RTI Act 2005, is dismissed.
However, Ms. Radhika Arora has raised important issues on the question of record keeping in the Commission in file no. CIC/WB/C/2008/00859. We have already decided in the Commission, in order to follow up on compliance of decisions of the Commission, on non compliance of which we had also received representations, decided that Secretary of the Commission Shri B. B. Srivastava will now assume responsibility for ensuring compliance with all decisions made by the Commission. For this purpose, a Register of Non Compliance will be opened, which will be processed by the Office of Secretary, CIC and on conclusion of the complaint, the complaint will either be closed or registered as a complaint for hearing under the appropriate sub sec. of Sec. 18(1) and proceeded upon by the Bench of the Information Commissioner concerned. The Office of Secretary, Central Information Commission, may now put this process in place within ten working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.
2. Similarly, in relation to file no. CIC/WB/C/2008/00862, there is already a record of penalties being maintained in the Registry attached to the Chief Information Commissioner. This will now be converted into a register and regularly updated, and open for inspection by those who apply for the same.
63. With regard to compiling list of Show Cause notices, since these are frequent and part of other files, even where penalty has not been imposed, this request indeed qualifies for the application of the proviso to sub sec. (9) of Sec. 7, as it would disproportionately divert the resources of the Commission in compiling this. However, such information is readily available on the website of the Commission by clicking three words "Sow Cause Notice" on the search Icon of the website. There is however no separate record maintained of complaints against Information Commissioners including Chief Information Commissioner as sought by Ms Arora in file no. CIC/WB/C/2008/00863 and these are all dealt with on the file concerned by the concerned Information Commissioner.
With these observations/directions, these three complaints may now be considered as closed. Announced in the hearing.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 11.6.2009 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 11.6.2009 7