Central Information Commission
Shri Surendra Kumar vs Dep’T Of Personnel & Training (Dopt) on 18 June, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/0027 dated 15-1-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19 (3)
Appellant: Shri Surendra Kumar
Respondent: Dep't of Personnel & Training (DOPT)
FACTS
By an application of 7-6-2007 Shri Surendra Kumar of Pitam Pura applied to Shri K. G. Verma, Deputy Secretary, DOPT seeking information with 3 sets of questions under the headings A, B, & C with 12 sub-questions and 16 sets of sub-questions to those sub-questions. To this he received a response on 18.6.2007 from Shri A. K. Cashyap Under Secretary, DOPT as follows:
"1. The date of effect of the OM No. 36012/2/96-Estt (Res) dated 2.7.97, as indicated in the OM itself is 2.7.1997 and the date of effect of the OM No. 36028/17/2001-Estt (Res) dated 11.7.2002 as clarified in the OM No. 36028/17/2001-Estt (Res) dated 31.1.2005 is 11.7.2002.
2. The correct position is given in (i) above. Any clarification issued contrary to above, stands superseded by the above clarification.
3. It is the decision of the government to make effective the OM No. 36028/17/2001-Estt (Res.) dated 11.7.2002 from the date of its issue i.e. with effect from 11.7.2002. This department is not aware of any judgment specifying the date of issue of the said OM from any specific date.
4. Reason for non applicability of concept of the own merit is given in the OM dated 31.1.2005 itself referred to by you. Since promotions by non- selection are made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and the concept of merit is not involved in such promotions, the OM dated 11.7.2002 does not apply to the promotions made by non selection method.
5. In this regard, a copy of your letter is being forwarded to Shri A. K. Srivastava, US/ CPIO, Estt 'D' Section, DOPT North Block, New Delhi for sending you a suitable reply in the matter.
B With reference to your request regarding the details of the cases referred to this Department by the Ministry of Urban Development about 9-10 months back, it is stated that you need to specify the particulars of the information sought by you. In absence of such specification, it is possible to furnish information.1
C. With reference to your request for a copy of OM No. 02/10/80-JCA (Volume IV ) dated 5.11.1993, a copy of your application is being forwarded to Shri R. K. Sharma, Section Officer (JCA) for sending you a suitable reply in the matter."
Not satisfied, however Shri Surendra Kumar made a further representation to CPIO, Shri A. K. Cashyap through letter of 4.7.2007 further elaborating on the questions on information that he had sought concluding with the following remarks:-
"It has been seen that PIO not furnishing complete information and avoiding to supply the copies of relevant note sheets on the basis of which decision was taken or OM issued by DOP&T. it may kindly be noted that CIC is empowered to recommend disciplinary action against PIO in addition to fine up to Rs. 25,000/- for not supply information's within 30 days, giving incomplete information, giving misleading information as per provision of RTI Act u/s 20 (2). It is again requested to supply the information's within prescribed time frame of 30 days."
To this Shri A. K. Cashyap sent a response on 27.7.2007 as follows:-
"The Right to Information Act does not require the Central Public Information Officer to create any information or to interpret any information. He is also not required to investigate any matter or to decide constitutional or legal validity of any action or to give directions/orders to any authority to take or not to take any action. He is only required to furnished information which already exists. The available information has already been furnished to you vide this Department's letter of even number dated 18.6.2007. As regards, the issues concerning other CPIOs/ Public Authorities, you are requested to contact the concerned CPIO for further information directly."
Nevertheless Shri Surendra Kumar moved an appeal before Shri K. G. Verma, Director and Appellate Authority, DOPT on 25.7.2007 complaining that he had received information only on a few para and that "incomplete and evasive. Copies of file noting and clarification have not been supplied as requested in the RTI Application."
The appeal was examined in some detail by Shri K. G. Verma, Director who dismissed this arriving at the following conclusion:-
"The appellant made a representation to the CPIO vide his representation dated 4.7.2007 wherein he stated that information supplied to him was incomplete and demanded copies of file notings issued to the M/o Finance, Shri A. K. 2 Cashyap. CPIO informed him vide his letter of even number dated 27.7.2007 that the Right to Information act did not require the Central Public Information Officer to create any information required to investigate any matter or to decide constitutional or legal validity of any action nor to give directions/ orders to any authority to take or not to take any action. He is required to furnish information which already exists. The CPIO told him that the available information had already been furnished to him vide this Department's letter of even number dated 18.6.2007. As regards, the issues concerning other CPIOs/ Public Authorities, the appellant was advised to contact the concerned CPIO.
Shri A. K. Cashyap, CPIO furnished all the information at his command to the appellant and advised him correctly. There is no substance in the appeal."
However, in arriving at this conclusion Director Shri K. G. Verma has also referred to the reference of part 'C' of the initial questions having been referred to the concerned CPIO Shri R. K. Sharma, Section Officer (JCA), regarding which transfer appellant had been informed. Appellant's prayer before us in his second appeal is as below:-
"1. PIO Shri A. K. Kashyap and PIO Shri Ratan Kumar Sharma, SO (JCA) DOPT may please be directed to supply all the information immediately free of cost.
2. Penalty may be imposed on PIOs u/s 20 (1) for deliberately delaying and avoiding the information with motive to harass the applicant.
3. Disciplinary action may be recommended against PIOS and Appellate Authority u/s 20 (2) for deliberately violating the provisions of RTI Act 2005 in spite of bringing out the provisions in their knowledge in the RTI application itself."
The appeal was heard on 18-6-2009. The following are present.
Respondents Shri G. C. Pundir, Under Secretary, DOPT.
Shri Sunil Kumar Adlakha, Section Officer.
Although informed of the date of hearing by our notice of June 9, 2009 appellant Shri Surendra Kumar opted not to be present.
Shri G. C. Pundir, Under Secretary submitted that such information as is available in the DOPT has in fact been provided. He also submitted a copy of a letter dated 21.6.2007 from Shri R. K. Sharma,, SO (JCA) responding to part 'C' of the questions to the appellant with following comments;-
3"In so far as furnishing a copy of OM No. 02/10/80-JCA (Volume IV) Dated 5.11.1993 is concerned, it is available at Department of Personnel & Training's website http://persmin.nic.in."
DECISION NOTICE We find that the information sought by appellant Shri Surendra Kumar has been supplied to him inasmuch as access can be provided in the definition of 'right to information' under sub-section (j) of section 2 of the Act. The CPIO in his response to appellant's representation of 4.7.2007 has correctly held that only such information can be provided "which is held by or under the control of any public authority".
However, we find that in the response of SO, Shri R. K. Sharma he has simply referred Shri Surendra Kumar to the website of the DOPT. Under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act "an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form of in which it is sought", with some qualifications which do not apply in the present case. The CPIO should, therefore, have determined from appellant Shri Surendra Kumar if he would be satisfied with the information provided, or, if he sought a printout, to seek the necessary fee. As explained by Shri G. S. Pundir this is in fact the practice in the DOPT. However, this is not an issue in the appeal before us and, therefore, this may be treated by the CPIO as simply an observation of this Commission. We find that this appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 18-6-2009 4 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 K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 18-6-2009 5