Central Information Commission
Praveen Poddar vs Central Electricity Authority on 22 September, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CEATY/A/2022/610551
PRAVEEN PODDAR .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Deputy Director, OPM,
CEA, Sewa Bhawan,
R K Puram, Sector-1,
New Delhi -110066 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20/09/2023
Date of Decision : 20/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07/08/2021
CPIO replied on : 14/09/2021
First appeal filed on : 10/09/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 09/02/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16/02/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.08.2021 seeking information as under:1
"A. Request for information from PIO of Sh Rakesh Goyal, Chief Engineer (Operation Performance Monitoring)/CEA (Ex- Director/CVC)
1) Kindly inform action taken and date of action taken on email dated 04/08/2021 (Page 81-121 of Supporting Document) sent to [email protected] with the subject - Email sent on 22/10/2017, CVC email dated 20/03/2013, CVC complaint no. 7254/2013, Nonresponsive Railways
2) Kindly transfer RTI request under 9 series to Railway, CVC, CBI, GNCTD and PMO so that information can be supplied by their PIO duly taking cognisance of developments up to 06/08/2021 B. FACTS (Edited/updated to facilitate the supply of information/transfer of RTI request) -
Final Status of CEATY/R/2017/50032 Date of receipt 20/03/2017.
1) Email dated 06/03/2016 was sent to CVO/CEA with subject - CVC ID Note No. Conf/2106/10/107479 dated 04/10/2010, RTI request DOP&T/R/2013/63576 dated 02/09/2013. Matter is related to CVC Complaint 18545/2016 dated 07/03/2016.
2) Status of 3 issues mentioned in original RTI request dated 02/09/2013 Issue I: Initiation of document dated 12/04/2013 by Sh Arjun Kumar, CESE/NFR for my illegal and malicious referral to NFR/Medical Board.
Status: On 06/08/2021, based on telephonic call from 01125367036, email was sent on 06/08/2021 to [email protected] with subject - Sh Anish Prasad DDA/CBI letter no. 802/DD(A)/Appeal/RTI/2017 dated 27/12/2017 received on 18/01/2018, Attempt to declare a railway officer mentally insane, FIR No. 393/13 at Jalukbari (Guwahati) Police station, Regarding Email to dcbi on 20/07/2012 and 28/05/2013, Email to CBI/Anti-Corruption HQ Zone on 17/05/2013 and Email to CBI/NE Zone on 10/05/2013 Issue IV: Illegal, malafide and forced medical examination/observation/evaluation from 23/05/2013 to 28/06/2013. CBI has taken note of the case on 04/06/2013 and 25/06/2013.
2Status: For role of CBI, CVC Complaint 11912/2015 was registered on 25/06/2015. CBI/Guwahati issued letter on 08/07/2015. In addition, latest grievance DOPAT/E/2021/07872 dated 05/08/2021 has been registered Issue VI:
Continuing delay in CVC advised disciplinary proceedings against me.
Status: CVC Complaint 8341/2013 was under process with CVC since March 2013. Subsequent sequence of events revealed continuation of disciplinary proceedings without receipt of mandatory CVC first stage advise. Now it is related to communication PMOPG/E/2020/0978660 dated 13/11/2020 pending since 10/05/2021 with JS(G)/RB Sh S K Agarwal Status REQUEST DISPOSED OF as on 05/09/2017.
Date of Action 05/09/2017 Remarks Reply: - The matter does not pertain to CVO, CEA. Therefore, it is requested that the information may kindly be sought from the appropriate office/organisation".
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 14.09.2021 stating as under:
"The information sought regarding the above subject is not available in the division. Please contact the concerned tax officer."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.09.2021 stating as under:
"A. RELIEF SOUGHT: Direction to PIO for online transfer of RTI request under 9 series to Railways, CVC, CBI and Delhi Police w.r.t Ms Sanjita ACP/Delhi Police/Vigilance Branch letter no. 106/21/3688/RTI/Vigilance dated 07/09/2021 (received on 10/09/2021) referring matter to their Crime Branch. The Delhi Police letter mentions CVC Complaint 181797/2021/vigilance-1 dated 30/07/2021 against Sh Navin Kumar IRSEE and JS (Conf)/RB referred to CVO/Railway Sh Ramesh Kumar Jha on 23/08/2021. However, Sh Harish Chander, Joint Director (R&SC)/Vigilance/Railway Board vide letter dated 06/09/2021 disowned the matter in response to online RTI request MORLY/R/T/21/01116/1 dated 23/08/2021 disposed online on 07/09/2021. Online RTI request CVCOM/R/T/21/00051 dated 23/08/2021 is under process with CVC with status updated on 26/08/021 B. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: No response within time limits 3 C. FACTS (Edited/updated)
1. Matter was informed to the then Director (Vigilance/Police)/Railway Board Sh Garib Dass on 22/04/2017 in the context of CVC Complaint 18545/2016 dated 07/03/2016 against Sh Rakesh Goyal, the then Director/CEA , during his posting in CVC, for malafide response dated 27/09/2013 and 08/10/2013 to RTI request DOP&T/R/2013/63576 dated 02/09/2013 and RTI request DOP&T/R/2013/63787 dated 09/09/2013 giving rise to complaints 26663/2015 and 7929/2015 under process with CVC Till date, CVC has not informed disposal of complaint.
2. Matter is related to grievance DPG/R/2014/80060 dated 14/02/2014 closed on 07/05/2019 and CVC Complaint 38669/2016 dated 30/06/2016 against Sh Ajit Seth Ex-Cabinet Secretary
3. RTI request NFRLY/R/2017/80030 dated 07/03/2017 was disposed on 21/04/2017 by SO to CSC/NFR Sh U C Pattnaik without supply of information. This is happening since Year 2014 by Railway Board and N F Railway Security Department to shield Sh Nirmal Singh IG/C&I/Railway Board against whom CVC Complaint 11055/2015 was registered on 13/06/2015 for his malafide role w.r.t illegal and coercive medical examination of appellant in May/June 2013. The complaint was registered when NHRC case 483/3/24/2014 was active waiting for response from Chairman Railway Board Sh A K Mital. The complaint was suppressed and appellant was subjected to further harassment by way of non- payment of salary in July 2015, August 2015 and from January 2017 to July 2019
4. Chairman Railway Board Sh Suneet Sharma (Ex-GM/ER) has not responded to RTI request DARPG/R/2015/60357 dated 26/06/2015 referred to him by DARPG. The RTI request is regarding non-availability of complete list of clarifications and attachments to CPGRAMS Grievances. Specifically, grievance MORLY/E/2014/13854 registered in December 2014 for criminal acts of the then CEE Sh B P Verma was closed in May 2015 after his retirement..."
FAA's order dated 09.02.2022 stated that - "The Reply to the Appeal was sent to the applicant vide letter No. CEA/GO&D/OPM/RTI/2021/424-25, dated 24-09-21"
Subsequently, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating as under:
"1. RELIEF SOUGHT: Transfer of this second appeal to CVO/CIC Sh Rahul Rastogi w.r.t grievance DOPAT/E/2022/01077 dated 21/01/2022 pending with him 4
2. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Delayed response dated 14/09/2021 of CPIO is not having digital/ink signature. Resultant appeal CEATY/A/E/21/00033 dated 10/09/2021 disposed online on 09/02/2021 does not provide letter no. CEA/GO&D/OPM/RTI/2021/424-25, dated 24-09-21 meaning thereby that there was intentional non-supply of information and deliberate delayed disposal of appeal. In addition, the appeal is shown to be disposed by CPIO who provided initial delayed response dated 14/09/2021 without ink/digital signature."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Sumit Goel, Dy. Director & CPIO along with I K Mehta, Director present in person.
The Appellant was heard, however, the Commission remarked that none of his statements during the hearing or the material placed by him on record stipulate anything in coherent terms as to what "information" is being desired within the mandate of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act; what relief is being desired under the First & Second Appeal. It was also pointed out to him that his request in the RTI Application asking for the CPIO to transfer the RTI Application to a series of other public authorities is unwarranted.
The Appellant rebutted by arguing that while he agrees asking the CPIO to transfer the RTI Application to tens of other public authorities is not appropriate but at the same time is it also not "illegal". He also argued that the FAA's order mention in the FAA's response was not provided to him and reply of the CPIO received was also unsigned.
Decision:
The Commission has placed verbatim the contents of the RTI Applications, First and Second Appeal filed by the Appellant above to highlight the extent of incoherence and disconnect evinced therein. In Second Appeal, the relief sought is transferring of the instant appeal to the "CVO/CIC" which is not even a maintainable request under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act.
Similarly, in the RTI Application, what appears to be a standalone request to the CPIO to transfer his RTI Application to scores of other public authorities is not even permissible under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as it does not qualify as an act 5 of seeking "information". Here, the Appellant may take note of Section 6(1)(a) of the RTI Act which states as under:
"6. Request for obtaining information.--
(1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to--
(a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority;"
In other words, if the Appellant wanted information from the 'Railways, CVC, CBI, GNCTD and PMO', it was incumbent upon him to have filed separate RTI Applications with each concerned public authority. Here, reference may be had of a full bench decision dated 22.09.2009 of the Commission vide File No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01280 in the matter of Ketan Kantilal Modi vs Central Board of Excise and Customs wherein it was held inter alia as under:
"52. The arrangement of these two sub-sections of Section 6 leads to the inference that there are certain definitive expectations of due diligence from an information-seeker ⎯ about identifying the public authority where the requested information is known to be held. Section 6(3) castes an obligation on the CPIO to transfer an RTI-application filed under Section 6(1) to another public authority where the former knows the information is held ⎯ a fact which a petitioner was not expected to know given the circumstances. In other words, Section 6(3) is the exception to the general rule contained in Section 6(1) that a request for information should be filed before a public authority, which holds the information. The decision whether to transfer an RTI-application within the meaning of Section 6(3) is to be the CPIO's given the circumstances of the matter...
53. It follows from it that when a petitioner is aware of the location of a given information vis-à-vis a public authority, it is not open to him to file his RTI- application before any other public authority in the expectation that this latter public authority would act under Section 6(3) to transfer his application to where the information was known to be held."
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act which is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--6
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
7"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
Similarly, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."8
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
The above precedents of various Courts are meant to assist the Appellant in exercising his right to information under the RTI Act in the future as the material placed on record through the instant case suggests that the Appellant has misconceived the entire import of the RTI Act as well as the role of the First and Second Appellate Authority. He clearly seeks to channelise a grievance through the channel of RTI Act without even adhering to any of the enabling provisions contained in the Act.
Having observed as above, the Appellant is advised to pursue his grievances before the appropriate forum and as for exercising his right to information under the RTI Act, the above-mentioned observations may be considered for future.
Lastly, as a matter of limited relief, the CPIO is directed to resend a signed copy of their reply of 14.09.2021 and the communication of 24.09.2021 mentioned in the FAA's order to the Appellant within 2 days of the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Further, the CPIO is also advised to revisit point no.1 of the RTI Application and provide a categorical reply regarding action taken and date of action taken, if any, on the referred email of 04.08.2021 (averred to be sent to [email protected]). The said revised reply shall be provided to the Appellant by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 9 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 10