Central Information Commission
Kailash vs Ministry Of Minority Affairs on 9 August, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/SB/A/2016/001301
Kailash v. PIO, M/o Minority Affairs
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 26.04.2016, CPIO replied on 03.06.2016, FAO on 21.06.2016, Second
appeal filed on 02.08.2016, Hearing on 05.02.2018;
Proceedings on 04.01.2018: Appellant present, Public Authority represented by CPIO Smt.
Hemalata. Directions and show cause issued.
Proceedings on 05.02.2018: Appellant absent, Public Authority represented by CPIOs Mr. Anurag
Sharma, Mr. Sami Ahmad Khan, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Mr. K.B. Singh, Smt. Geeta Mishra,
Smt. Hem Lata, Mr. JawaidAlam Khan, Mr. U. K. Sinha, Mr. Suresh Yadav, Mr. Ravi Chandra, Mr. Md.
Nadeem, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Mr. Aditya S. Singh, Mr. Hans Raj Meena at CIC;
Date of Decision - 08.08.2018: Penalty dropped and disposed of.
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought information regarding criterion for classifying a particular class of people as minority community, details of subsidy given to Muslims and other minority communities within minority quota of minorities and details regarding scholarship/subsidies provided to minority communities other than Muslims. PIO replied on 03.06.2016 that the information sought by the appellant is available on their official website www.minorityaffairs.gov.in. FAA stated that they did not agree with the claim of the appellant and despite the fact that information sought by him did not pertain to their Division, he was provided the information related to the Schemes implemented by the Division. Under two schemes implemented by the Division, no financial assistance was provided to the Muslim community however financial assistance under the said two schemes are provided to the State Waqf Boards so that they could manage their work efficiently.Being dissatisfied, the appellant has approached this Commission.
2. The Commission's order dated 13.07.2017:
2. The officer stated that the information sought was provided after the first appeal was filed after the appellant deposited Rs. 90 on 21.06.2016. The Ministry of Minority Affairs has certain schemes for minority welfare, which is its duty to inform the people on its own. Smt.Hemalata, the CPIO and others who attended second appeal hearing told the Commission the Ministry spends around Rs 50 crore for publicity of welfare schemes. Then why did the Ministry charge the applicant Rs CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 Page 1 90 for the welfare related information? The CPIO SmtHemalata said she would personally agree to this principle, but as an officer she would charge Rs 2 per page.
Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act, among other aspects, directs the public authority to publish following information:
(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;
(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it;
(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form;
(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use;
3. The Ministry is expected to publish details of all its schemes, programs etc designed for the welfare of minorities and the process or procedure to receive such benefit. Precisely the appellant asked the same. This information should be updated and supported with Frequently Asked Questions and answers so that more people will get benefitted by their schemes.
4. In this case nothing was provided in stipulated 30 days. Only after the first appeal, the CPIO collected Rs 90 and then gave the information sought. The information which was supposed to be given voluntarily under Section 4 was not given even when asked. The RTI application was filed for the same, it was silent, which amounts to deemed refusal that can attract penalty under Section 20. Section 7(1) of RTI Act says:
Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub- section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:
5. The information sought in this case was, thus denied. Sub section (5) and its proviso says:
Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed:
Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government.
6. The information delayed beyond thirty days, should have been given to appellant free of cost. But the CPIO has charged him Rs 90 after the First Appellate Authority has ordered to provide information, which is illegal. It is ridiculous that the ministry which spends Rs 50 crore for publicity of welfare schemes is selling such information at Rs 90 or Rs 2 per page! CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 Page 2
7. The CPIO and other officers tried to defend their 'selling' of information beyond 30 days, by saying that RTI Rules mandate them to charge copying fee, hence they were charging. They have simply ignored proviso to Section 7(5) of RTI Act. The public authority cannot say that they would give information only under RTI Act, and need not give information generally. The government bodies have to notify certain programs, release annual reports, explain schemes, publicise last dates, or hold press conferences or release press notes or PIB notes, which form part of their core functioning. If the same is sought under RTI Act, how can they charge it at Rs 2 per page?
8. The Commission holds:
A) The Public Authority should GIVE the information relating to welfare or schemes or procedure for applying for those benefits FREE OF COST. It should remember that even a profit loving company or private education shop does not sell its prospectus or pamphlet, which are distributed free of cost.
B) The information which could be disclosed on their own under Section 4(1)(b), cannot be sold by public authority, when asked under RTI Act. C) If they have printed material like prospectus or pamphlets that explain the schemes, they should not be priced high, but be given on subsidized price or free of cost. But charging such schemes related information at Rs 2 per page is highly unreasonable.
D) The applicability of RTI Act to the public authority does not mean that they are relieved of their basic duty of informing the people about their welfare schemes. For instance a Railway station has to provide or display its timetable free of cost and cannot wait for an RTI application or charge Rs 2 per page. A University has to publicize its admission program in its own interest and for the students.
9. The Commission directs Smt. Hemalata, CPIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed for deemed refusal andthen charging fee for copying which is against the provisions of RTI Act, before 07.08.2017.
3. The Commission's order dated 04.01.2018:
3. Smt. Hemalata, CPIO stated that she does not directly deal with the scheme about which the appellant was seeking details. She also stated that a part of the information was given by one section in-charge CPIO. The Commission found from the perusal of documents and submissions of Smt. Hemalata that the information sought was very simple and general but was not given for the reasons not known to Smt. Hemalata. She could not answer the Commission's questions regarding the concerned CPIOs. Smt. Hemalata told the Commission that there are 14 CPIOs for different wings of the Ministry. She stated that as she could not understand who would give which part of information, she forwarded the RTI application and Commission's order dated 13.07.2017 to all the 14 CPIOs. For a common man, it is almost impossible to know the jurisdictions and limitations of these CPIOs. Smt. Hemalata was not sure whether there is anybody to coordinate between these 14 CPIOs. Hence, the Commission is compelled to extend show-cause notices to all the 14 CPIOs including Smt. Hemalata for not taking any initiative to provide information. The appellant was seeking the number of schemes, their scope, eligibility criteria, rules and regulations as quoted in the notification along with the list of eligible minorities. This information has to be available on the official website of the Ministry under section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005. None of the CPIOs nor the public authority complied with section 4(1)(b). Though the compliance of the duty under this section was not in the question, it is a statutory obligation on the CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 Page 3 part of public authority including the CPIOs. When an applicant seeks that information, which should have disclosed under section 4(1)(b), but was not provided within 30 days, the Commission assumes the jurisdictions to secure compliance of RTI request through the compelling procedure under section 20.
4. In this case, each and every CPIOs along with public authority, which did not prescribed the specific jurisdictions and coordination is liable for the denial of information sought. Hence, the Commission directs all the following 14 CPIOs to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against each of them for delaying/denial of the information, before 05.02.2018. The Commission also directs the public authority to explain why it should not be ordered to pay compensation to the appellant, before 05.02.2018.
List of CPIOs in Ministry of Minority Affairs are as under:
1. Shri Aditya Shekhar, Under Secretary
2. Shri Suresh Yadav, Under Secretary
3. Shri U.K. Sinha, Under Secretary
4. Shri Hans Raj Meena, Under Secretary
5. Shri K.B. Singh, Under Secretary
6. Shri Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Under Secretary
7. Shri Sami Ahmed Khan, Under Secretary
8. Shri Anurag Sharma, Under Secretary
9. Shri Pradeep Kumar, Under Secretary
10. Shri Ravi Chandra, Under Secretary
11. Shri Nadeem, Under Secretary
12. Shri JawaidAlam Khan, Deputy Secretary
13. Smt. Geeta Mishra, Under Secretary
5. The case is posted on 05.02.2018 at 12:00PM.
Decision:
4. Shri Aditya S. Singh, CPIO &Under Secretary (SS) in his written submissions dated 29.01.2018 explained as under:
"I am to refer to the Order of Hon'ble Shri M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Central Information Commissioner dated 04.01.2018 and submit the following for kind consideration of Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner:
I. That during the months of May-July, 2016 the undersigned was holding the charge of CPIO-PP-II Section, which is looking after the Status of implementation of the decisions taken by Government on the follow-up action on the recommendations of the Sachar Committee Report and implementation of Prime Minister New 15 Point Programme. It is further submitted that the RTI application dated 26.04.2016 was not marked to the CPIO PP-II and, hence no reply was forwarded by the undersigned to the applicant Shri Kailash Bisnoi on behalf of CPIO-PP-II. II. That at the time of Ist Appeal (dated 03.06.2016) also, the undersigned was holding the charge of CPIO PP-II Section and the same was not marked to CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 Page 4 the CPIO PP-II and, hence no reply was forwarded by the undersigned to the applicant Shri Kailash Bisnoi on behalf of CPIO- PP-II. III. That at present the undersigned has been holding the charge of CPIO-
Scholarship Section and accordingly, a reply to the applicant Shri Kailash Bisnoi has already been sent on 17.01.2018 with necessary details of the three scholarship schemes meant for educational empowerment of six notified Minority Communities, as under:
(i) Pre-matric Scholarship Scheme (From Classes I to X)
(ii) Post-matric Scholarship Scheme (From Class XI to Ph.D)
(iii) Merit-cum Means based Scholarship Scheme (For Technical and Professional Courses at undergraduate and post graduate levels).
IV. That at the time of the application stage the undersigned was not the concerned officer/CPIO responsible for dissemination of any requisite information and, hence, the undersigned was not responsible for giving any information to the CPIO.
V. That the undersigned has not denied any information, at any point in time, to the aforesaid applicant.
2. It is, therefore, requested to kindly place the above submissions before Respected Hon'ble Shri M. Shridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner to drop the name of the undersigned from the list of CPIOs in the aforesaid Show Cause Notice and that penalty should not be imposed on the undersigned."
5. Shri Suresh Yadav, CPIO &Under Secretary (FC) in his written submissions dated 31.01.2018 submitted as under:
"With reference to Central Information Commission (CIC)'s Order No. CIC/SB/A/2016/001301 dated 04/01/2018 the undersigned is to submit the following for kind consideration of Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner:
(i) On receipt of RTI application dated 26.04.2016 from Shri Kailash Bisnoi, reply was sent to the applicant vide letter dated 02.06.2016.
(ii) As regard CIC's Order dated 13.07.2017 received through SmtHemlata, CPIO & Under Secretary, it is stated that since the requisite information was already furnished to the applicant vide the abovementioned letter dated 02.06.2016 no further action was required on the part of this CPIO.
(iii) That an O.M. dated 8-1/2017-NCM dated 4.1.2018 was received from Ms. Hemlata CPIO &Uncer Secretary, MoMA who appeared before CIC on 4.1.2018, Hon'ble CIC has given verbal directions to provide input sought by the applicant vide his application dated 26.4.2016 within ten days i.e. 14th January, 2018. Subsequently, CIC's order No. CIC/SB/A/2016/001301 CIC dated 4.1.2018 has also been received vide which show cause notice has been issued to the undersigned CPIO alongwith other CPIOs for imposing maximum penalty for delaying/denial of the information.
(iv) Presently, the undersigned is holding the charge of CPIO - Coaching Division looking after following five schemes being implemented by the Ministry:
(a) Free coaching and Allied Scheme,
(b) NaiUdaan - Support for minority Students clearing Prelims conducted by Union Public Service Commission, Staff Selection Commission, State Public Service Commissions, etc,
(c) PadhoPardesh - scheme of interest subsidy on educational loans for overseas studies for the students belonging to the minority communities, CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 Page 5
(d) Maulana Azad National Fellowship,
(e) JioParsi
(v) On receiving of the CIC Order dated 4/01/2018 the undersigned has furnished the requisite information relating to above mentioned scheme to the applicant Shri Kailash Bishnoi vide letter dated 11.01.2018.
2. It is therefore, requested to kindly place the above submission before respected Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner and to exclude name of the undersigned from the list of CPIOs to whom show-cause notice has been issued in this case".
6. Shri U.K. Sinha, Under Secretary & CPIO, MoMA in his written submissions dated 16.01.2018 explained as under:
"I am refer to the order of Shri M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Central Information Commissioner, dated: 04.01.2018, and submit that I am CPIO in respect of National Commission for Minorities matters in the Ministry of Minority Affairs. I have already replied to the applicant both in English and Hindi vide letter no. 8- 2/2018-NCM dated: 09.01.2018, in pursuance to O.M. dated: 04.01.2018 issued by Ms. Hemlata, Under Secretary, Ministry of Minority Affairs. The reply was sent immediately after receipt of the communication from Ms. HemlataUnder Secretary.
2. Earlier, request of information from Shri. Kailash Bisnoi, under RTI Act 2005, received by the undersigned on 06.05.2016 was also replied within time vide this Ministry letter no. 8/2/2016 MsDP dated: 12.05.16, ass CPIO (MsDP). Further, as per the order of First Appellate Authority and Director PP, Shri Devender Yadav, dated: 20.06.2016 no further information was required to be given to the applicant.
3. Further from October 2016 I proceeded on long leave as I suffered from CANCER. Consequently the charge of MsDP was taken from him.
4. There is no intentional or willful violation of RTI act by me. However, I submit respectfully that I would comply with all further directions from the high office of CIC.
5. It is requested to place the letter alongwith the enclosure to respected Shri M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Central Information Commissioner as and when required."
CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 Page 6
7. Shri Hans Raj Meena, CPIO &Under Secretary in his written submissions dated 17.01.2018 explained as under:
"I am directed to refer to Office Memorandum dated 10/01/2018 of this Ministry along with Order No. CIC/SB/A/2016/001301 dated 04/01/2018 under RTI Act, 2005.
2. It may be stated that the undersigned joined this Ministry on 24th October, 2017 and work related to Integrated Finance Division was assigned on 23rd November, 2017.
3. Meanwhile Office Memorandum bearing No. 8-1/2017-NCM dated 04/01/2018 along with OM dated 26/12/2017, 04/09/2017 & 04/07/2017 of this Ministry and Show-Cause Notice dated 13/07/2017 of CIC was received from Ms. Hem Lata, Under Secretary & CPIO on 04/01/2018. Since Integrated Finance Division deals with the Financial Proposals of the Ministry and is not a custodian of Plans / Schemes / Files / Proposals, 'Nil' information was provided to the appellant.
4. In view of the above, it is humbly requested that penalty may not be imposed for delaying / denial of the information under the RTI Act, 2005 against the undersigned and may be exempted to pay compensation to the appellant please."
8. Shri K.B. Singh, CPIO &Under Secretary in his written submission dated 29.01.2018 submitted as under:
"With reference to CIC's Order No. CIC/SB/A/2016/001301 dated 10.01.2018, I furnish the explanation as under:
2. RTI application dated 26.04.2016 of Shri Kailash Bisnoi, Jodhpur was received in this Division on 04.05.2016 and reply to that was furnished to the applicant vide letter of even No. dated 03.06.2016 i.e., within prescribed time limit.
3. Further, an OM has been received from Ms. Hem Lata, Under Secretary and CPIO on 04.01.2018 (received in this division on 10.01.2018) wherein they have advised to all CPIOs may be provided inputs sought for the applicant by 14.01.2018. The reply has also been provided by the concerned Appellate Authority and Director handling the charged of SeekhoaurKamao and USTTAD schemes on 12.01.2018 to the concerned with copy to Under Secretary (RTI) and concerned CPIO.
4. In view of the above, it is requested that the undersigned, handling the charged of CPIO and under Secretary (SeekhoaurKamao) and Shri U.K. Sinha, then handling the charged of CPIO and Under Secretary in respect of schemes of RML division may not be imposed penalty."
CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 Page 7
9. Shri Sandeep Kumar Sharma, CPIO & Under Secretary (Coord. & Media) in his written submissions dated 29.01.2018 explained as under:
"Kindly refer to the order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Information Commissioner, Professor M. Sridhar Acharyulu, CIC, in Case Notice No. CIC/SB/A/2016/001301 wherein show-cause notice has been issued, among others, to the undersigned in my capacity as one of the CPIOs in Ministry of Minority Affairs, before 05.02.2018.
2. In this connection, the following facts are submitted for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Information Commission:-
(i) That Shri Kailash Bisnoi, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, filed RTI application dated 26.04.2016 (in Hindi) seeking information regarding (a) criterion for classifying any particular caste or community; (b) details of subsidies released as Grant in aid to Muslim community and other communities by the Ministry; and (c) complete data in respect of subsidy/scholarship released other than Muslim community/caste/religion.
(ii) That Shri Bishnoi filed first appeal dated 03.06.2016 under the RTI Act, 2005 stating that he was not satisfied by the information provided by the two CPIOs vide their letters dated 12th May, 2016 and 18th May, 2016.
(iii) That the respective First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) vide their order dated 20.06.2016 and 21.06.2016 disposed off the first appeal and one of the FAAs provided the applicant/appellant a copy of the pamphlet of the schemes of Ministry of Minority Affairs.
(iv) That I joined Ministry of Minority Affairs in January, 2017 and was assigned the work of Coordination Division. At present, I am handling the work of Coordination, Public Grievances, DBT Coordination and Research & Media in terms of Order dated 23.11.2017.
(v) That Ms. Hem Lata, Under Secretary & CPIO, vide her O.M. No. 8-
1/2017-NCM dated 04th September, 2017, forwarded a copy of CIC's order dated 13.07.2017 in the aforesaid case for information and necessary action by all concerned. As may be observed, in para 8 of the said Order dated 13.07.2017, the Hon'ble Information Commissioner had given certain observations relating to the Public Authority. Vide Para 9 of the said Order, a direction was issued to the said CPIO (Ms. Hem Lata) to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed for deemed refusal and then charging fee for copying which is against the provisions of RTI Act, before 07.08.2017. Since there was no direction to other CPIOs, (including the undersigned) in the Ministry, I noted the observations of the Hon'ble Information Commissioner in the said order dated 13.07.2017 for future reference.
CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 Page 8
(vi) That Ms. Hem Lata, Under Secretary & CPIO, sent another O.M.
No.8-1/2017-NCM dated 04th January, 2018, along with other previous documents, stating that the Hon'ble Information Commissioner in the instant case has given verbal directions to her on 04.01.2018 that the applicant may be provided inputs sought for by him in his RTI application dated 26.04.2016 within 10 days, i.e., by 14th January, 2018, under intimation to her.
(vii) That in compliance of the said verbal directions of the Hon'ble Information Commissioner (as conveyed by Ms. Hem Lata, Under Secretary & CPIO, vide another O.M. No. 8-1/2017-NCM dated 04th January, 2018), the undersigned has given a reply to the applicant vide letter No. 16-01/2018-Coord. Dated 12.01.2018 (both in Hindi and English versions) with copy to (i) the Ld. Deputy Registrar, CIC
(ii) Ms. Hem Lata, US & CPIO, Ministry of Minority Affairs and (iii) RTI Cell, Ministry of Minority Affairs in respect of both Coordination Division and Research & Media Division.
2. The Hon'ble Information Commissioner may like to peruse from the above stated facts that I joined this Ministry in January 2017 and thus, I was not in the Ministry at the material time of RTI application dated 26.04.2017 and First Appeal dated 03.06.2016 filed by Shri Kailash Bisnoi, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. After joining this Ministry, I did not deal with any scheme of this Ministry till I was given the work relating to Research & Media Division. In Research & Media Division, I am handling one Central Sector Scheme, namely, 'Research/Studies, Monitoring and Evaluation of Development Schemes including Publicity'. Under this Scheme, professional charges are provided to those Research Organizations / Institutions / Councils / Civil Societies / Universities including Deemed Universities, Reputed Institutions of Higher Learning, Autonomous Bodies / Marker Research Agencies and Registered Bodies of Professionals which have expertise and are willing to undertake purposeful Operation Research / Market Research / Action Research. In addition, funds are also spent for publicity through print and electronic media with a view to spreading awareness of welfare schemes implemented by Ministry of Minority Affairs in the country for the welfare of 06 Centrally notified minorities, namely Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Biddhists, Parsis and Jains. It may also be noted here that in this Scheme, no grants-in-aid or subsidy is given to any minority community.
3. The Hon'ble Information Commissioner may also like to peruse that during my tenure in this Ministry since January 2017, I have not dealt with the work relating to any of the welfare schemes and/or issues on which the applicant/appellant, Shri Kailash Bisnoi, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, had sought information in his RTI application dated 26.04.2016. Thus, I am not liable for the denial of information sought. Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that no penalty may be imposed on the undersigned keeping in view the above-stated facts as well as principles of natural justice. I beseech the Hon'ble Information Commissioner that the show-cause notice issued vide order dated 04.012018 may kindly be considered as dropped in so far as the undersigned is concerned.
4. It is humbly requested that this reply may kindly be placed before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner in compliance of order dated 04.012018 CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 Page 9 regarding Show Cause Notice passed in Case Notice No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001301, for his kind consideration and passing an order, in so far as the undersigned is concerned, as prayed for in para 3 hereinabove."
10. Shri S.A. Khan, CPIO &Under Secretary in his written submission dated 18.01.2018 submitted as under:
"I am directed to refer to Office Memorandum dated 10.01.2018 of this Ministry along with Order No. CIC/SB/A/2016/001301 dated 04/01/2018 under RTI Act, 2005.
2. It may be stated that the undersigned joined this Ministry on 10th April, 2017 and work related to SeekhoaurKamao and USTTAD Scheme was assigned on 19/04/2017. Subsequently transferred to IFD Division on 30/08/2017. Then transferred to e-Office and RTI on 23/11/2017. Since then looking after e-Office and RTI Cell, the Ministry assigned additional charge of PP Division on 22/12/2017.
3. Meanwhile Office Memorandum bearing No.8-1/2017-NCM dated 04/01/2018 along with OM dated 26/12/2017, 04/09/2017 & 04/07/2017 of this Ministry and Show-Cause Notice dated 13/07/2017 of CIC was received from Ms. Hem Lata, Under Secretary & CPIO on 04/01/2018. Information pertaining to PP Division has already been provided to the Appellant and copy to Ms. Hem Lata US&CPIO through letter F.No.7/1/2017-PP-II dated 08/01/2018.
4. In view of the above, it is humbly requested that penalty may not be imposed for delaying/denial of the information under the RTI Act, 2005 against the undersigned and may be exempted to pay compensation to the appellant please."
11. Shri Anurag Sharma, Under Secretary in his written submissions dated 19.01.2018 explained as under:
"Kindly refer to the order dated 4th January, 2018 passed by the Hon'ble Information Commissioner, Professor M. Sridhar Acharyulu, CIC, in Case Notice No. CIC/SB/A/2016/001301 wherein show-cause notice has been issued to among others, me in my capacity as one of the CPIOs in Ministry of Minority Affairs, before 5th February, 2018.
2. The case related to the application filed by Shri Kailash Bisnoi dated 26th April, 2016, seeking information relating method of grant of minority status to the community and information on the various welfare schemes related to minority. The first appeal in the matter was filed on 3rd June, 2016.
3. It may be mentioned that the undersigned CPIO has joined Ministry of Minority Affairs in October, 2016 and presently holding the charge of Administration and Establishment of the Ministry and the work assigned is not related to schemes of the Ministry. Vide OM No. 8-1/2017-NCM dated 4th September, 2017, Ms. Hem Lata, US and CPIO has forwarded the order of CIC of even no. dated 13th July, 2017, for information and necessary action. In para 8 of the said Order, the Hon'ble Information Commissioner has given certain observations relating to the Public Authority. Vide para 9 of the said Order, a direction was issued to the CPIO (Ms. Hem Lata) to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed for deemed refusal and then charging fee for copying which is against the provisions of RTI Act, before 7th August, 2017. Since there was no direction to other CPIOs, CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 Page 10 including the undersigned in the Ministry, I noted the observations of the Hon'ble Information Commissioner for future reference.
4. Ms. Hem Lata, sent another OM no. 8-1/2017-NCM dated 4th January, 20181, indicated that input sought by the applicant vide his application dated 26th April, 2016, may be furnished by all CPIOs by 14th January, 2018 positively to the applicant under intimation to her. The undersigned CPIO has given a reply to the applicant vide letter A-42/1/2017-Estt. dated 11th January, 2018, to the applicant with copy to Ms. Hem Lata, US and CPIO. Now the CIC vide its order dated 4th January, 2018, has given a show-cause notice for not furnishing the information to the applicant within mandated time period of 30 days.
5. The Hon'ble Information Commissioner may like to peruse from the above stated facts that I joined this Ministry in October 2016 and was not in the Ministry at the material time of filing of RTI application dated 26th April, 2016, and its disposal by concerned First Appellate Authorities. Further undersigned CPIO, is not dealing with any schemes of the Ministry and have also furnished the reply to the applicant as directed by the CIC, vide order dated 13th July, 2017. Thus, I am not liable for the denial of information sought. Therefore, it is most humbly, prayed that no penalty may be imposed on the undersigned. I, also humbly request the Hon'ble Information Commissioner that the show-cause notice issued vide order dated 4th January, 2018, may kindly be considered as dropped in so far as the undersigned is concerned.
6. It is humbly requested that this reply may kindly be placed before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner in compliance of order of Show Cause Notice passed in Case Notice No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 dated 4th January, 2018, for his kind consideration and passing an order, in so far as the undersigned is concerned, as prayed in para 5 hereinabove".
12. Shri Pradeep Kumar, CPIO &Under Secretary in his written submissions 23.01.2018 explained as under:
"With reference to CIC's Order No. CIC/SB/A/2016/001301 dated 10.01.2018, I furnish the explanation as under:
(i) RTI application dated 26.04.2016 of Shri Kailash Bisnoi, Jodhpur was received in this Division on 04.05.2016 and reply to that was furnished to the applicant vide letter of even No. dated 18.05.2016 i.e. within prescribed time limit.
(ii) Consequent upon that First Appeal dated NIL filed by the applicant was received in this Division on 15.06.2016 and reply to that was also furnished by this Division vide letter of even No. dated 21.06.2016 to the applicant within prescribed time. Moreover, a copy of the pamphlet of the schemes of Ministry of Minority Affairs was also enclosed to facilitate the applicant.
(iii) Recently, a communication dated 04.1.2018 was received from US (NCM Division) describing the proceedings held in CIC on 04.01.2018. As per this communication, CIC (Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu) gave verbal directions to provide information to the applicant on his application dated 26.04.2016 within 10 days i.e. 14th January, 2018 otherwise all the CPIOs in Ministry of Minority Affairs will be penalized as per RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, copies of CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 Page 11 Scheme guidelines were furnished to the applicant vide letter dated 11.01.2018.
(iv) Subsequently, a show cause dated 04.01.2018 issued by CIC was received on 08.01.2018 through RTI Cell whereby Commission directs all 14 CPIOs to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against each of them for delay/denial of information before 05.02.2018.
(v) In this context, it is mentioned that none of the point in the RTI application of Shri Kailash Bisnoi dated 26.04.2016 was pertaining to Waqf Division as the Schemes implemented by this Division are not welfare Scheme. Grain- in-aid under these Schemes are given to State Waqf Boards to strengthen them resulting in a more transparent and accountable administration and management of their Waqf properties and allow improvement in income generation & attaining self-sufficiency. Despite the above fact, this Division furnished the available information to the applicant along with copies of pamphlet & guidelines. Hence, there is no reason to impose any penalty under RTI Act, 2005 on the undersigned".
13. Shri Ravi Chandra, Under Secretary & CPIO (Haj) in his written submissions dated 29.01.2018 explained as under:
"Please refer to CIC's Notice for show cause vide No. CIC/SB/A/2016/001301 dated 23.01.2018 in the matter of Kailash v. PIO, M/o Minority Affairs. In the matter, I would like to submit the following facts before the Hon'ble Commission for kind consideration:
(i) Consequent to the decision of the Government to transfer the work related to Haj matters from M/o External Affairs to M/o Minority Affairs, the undersigned was attached to MEA from 08.03.2016. Hence, on the date of filing the RTI by the applicant i.e. on 26.04.2016, the undersigned was not working as CPIO for any of the Schemes/Division of the MoMA.
(ii) The Haj Division was transferred from M/o External Affairs to M/o Minority Affairs from 1st October, 2016 and the undersigned was assigned the work of Under Secretary (Haj).
(iii) Haj Division of the Ministry does not implement any of the schemes/programmes of the Ministry. After transfer of Haj matters from 01.10.2016, it looks after the works related to management of Haj Pilgrimage and the administration of the Haj Committee Act, 2002.
(iv) The RTI application dated 26.04.2016 of the applicant was not transferred to Haj Division. CIC's Order dated 04.01.2018 was apprised to the undersigned vide Ministry's O.M No. 8-1/2017-NCM dated 04.01.2018.
(v) In compliance of the said order of CIC, a reply was sent to the applicant on 09.01.2018 furnishing information on Haj, policy related to Haj pilgrimage and Haj subsidy.
2. It is submitted that at the time of filing the RTI application by the applicant the Haj Division of the Ministry was not in existence. Further, Haj Division is also not administering any of the schemes/programmes of MoMA. Since, the RTI application was not transferred to the undersigned at any stage, reply to applicant could not be given. The verbal orders dated 04.01.2018 of CIC was circulated on 04.01.2018 and the authenticated true copy of the order was circulated to the undersigned on 10.01.2018. In compliance of the said order, information pertaining to Haj has already been furnished to the applicant vide letter dated 09.01.2018.
CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 Page 12
3. In view of the above mentioned facts, it is humbly requested that the undersigned CPIO may kindly be exempted from imposing penalty".
14. Shri Md. Nadeem, Under Secretary (Haj-II) & CPIO in his written submissions dated 29.01.2018 explained as under:
"Please refer to CIC's Notice for show-cause vide No. CIC/SB/A/2016/001301 dated 23.01.2018 in the matter of Kailash v. PIO, M/o Minority Affairs. In the matter, I would like to submit the following facts before the Hon'ble Commission for kind consideration:
(i) The undersigned was transferred from Department of Personnel & Training to Ministry of Minority Affairs (MoMA) on 03.04.2017 and posted in Haj Division, MoMA on 19.04.2017
(ii) At the first time in MoMA, the undersigned was designated as CPIO on 18.09.2017
(iii) The Haj Division was transferred from M/o External Affairs to M/o Minority Affairs from 1st October, 2016
(iv) Haj Division of the Ministry does not implement any of the schemes/programmes of the Ministry. After transfer of Haj matters to MoMA, it looks after the works related to management of Haj Pilgrimage, the administration of the Haj Committee of India, Mumbai and Haj Committee Act, 2002.
(v) The RTI application dated 26.04.2016 of the applicant was not transferred to Haj Division. CIC's Order dated 04.01.2018 was apprised to the undersigned vide Ministry's O.M. No. 8-1/2017-NCM dated 04.01.2018.
(vi) In compliance of the said order of CIC, a reply was sent to the applicant on 10.01.2018 furnishing information on Haj, policy related to Haj pilgrimage and copies of Haj Committee Act 2002 & Rule 2002.
2. It is submitted that at the time of filing the RTI application by the applicant the Haj Division of the Ministry was not in existence. Further, this CPIO has not joined M/o Minority Affairs at the time of RTI application furnished by the applicant and Haj Division is also not administering any of the schemes/programmes of MoMA. The verbal orders dated 04.01.2018 of CIC was circulated on 04.01.2018 and the authenticated true copy of the order was circulated to the undersigned on 10.01.2018. In compliance of the said order, information pertaining to Haj has already been furnished to the applicant vide letter dated 10.01.2018.
3. In view of the above mentioned facts, it is humbly requested to Hon'ble Information Commissioner that the undersigned CPIO may kindly be exempted from imposing the penalty".
CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 Page 13
15. Shri J.A. Khan, Deputy Director (Budget) in his written submissions dated 29.01.2018 explained as under:
"Reference is invited to the order of CIC in case no. CIC/SB/A/2016/0011301 communicated vide Ministry of Minority Affairs O.M No. CIC/Notice/2017 dated 10.01.2018 on the subject cited above and the undersigned is to submit that none of the points on which applicant Shri Kailash Bishnoi, Jodhpur, Rajasthan had sought information pertains to Budget Section of Ministry of Minority Affairs. However, a copy of the reply is sent to the applicant.
2. It may also be noted that the undersigned has never been dealing with any scheme. Moreover, I was not working in this Ministry at the material time of the applicant filed by Shri Kailash Bishnoi as I have joined this Ministry as Deputy Director only on 18.10.2016. Hence, there is no denial of information on my part".
16. Smt. Hem Lata, Under Secretary (NMDFC) & CPIO in her written submissions dated 29.01.2018 explained as under:
"Kindly refer to the Order dated 4th January, 2018 passed by the Hon'ble Information Commissioner, Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu, CIC, in case Notice No. CIC/SB/A/2016/001301 wherein show-cause notice has been issued to, among others, me in my capacity as one of the CPIOs in the Ministry of Minority Affairs before 5th February, 2018.
2. The case relates to the RTI application filed by Shri Kailash Bisnoi dated 26th April, 2016, seeking information relating method of grant of minority status to the community and information on the various welfare schemes related to minority. The first appeal in the matter was filed on 3rd June, 2016.
3. It may be mentioned here that during the CIC's hearing on 07.07.2017 in the case of Shri Kailash, RTI Activist, Rajasthan, Hon'ble CIC's issued show-cause Notice No CIC/SB/A/2016/001301 dated 13.07.2017 to me with the directions to explain why maximum penalty should not be imposed for deemed refusal and then charging fee for copying which is against the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 before 07.08.2017. In response to said Show Cause Notice, I submitted para-wise reply to Hon'ble Information Commissioner on 04.08.2017 stating that I joined the Ministry of Minority Affairs on 05.10.2016 whereas Shri Kailash, the Appellant, submitted his RTI application on 26.04.2016 i.e. much prior to my joining. Hence, I am neither competent for refusal of information nor charging of any fee as I joined the Ministry of Minority Affairs on 05.10.2016 whereas the concerned PIO replied on 03.06.2016. While replying to CIC's, it has also been informed to CIC that in the alleged period, I was not dealing with any subsidy, scholarship or any other scheme for the welfare of Minority Community/Muslim Community.
4. In para 8 of the said show-cause notice dated 13-7-2017, Hon'ble Information Commissioner has communicated decisions/observations relating to the Public Authority which I consider necessary to brought to the knowledge of all the CPIOs in the Ministry for compliance and future references. Hence, the said notice dated 13.07.2017 of CIC was sent to all the CPIOs of the Ministry for information and compliance of the decisions communicated by Hon'ble Information CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 Page 14 Commissioner and simultaneously taking initiative for providing the information to the Appellant, a request was also made to CPIOs for providing information to the Appellant.
5. In the said case, Hon'ble Information Commissioner again sent a hearing notice on 04.01.2018 to me which was attended by me. In the said hearing, I informed the Hon'ble CIC's along with supportive documents that I conveyed the decisions dated 13.07.2017 of CIC's to all the CPIOs in the Ministry of Minority Affairs with the request to provide the information to the Appellant as I am not dealing directly with any scheme.
6. The Hon'ble Information Commissioner has again served a notice of hearing of Show Cause on 05.02.2018 at 12.00 PM vide No. CIC/SB/A/2016/001301 which was received by me on 25.01.2018. Hon'ble Information Commissioner has given order to me to submit written submission, if any, to the Commission at least 7 days before the date of hearing and furnish the notice to all the 13 CPIOs for attending the hearing on 05.02.2018 at 12.00 PM in the said case. As per the orders of Hon'ble Information Commissioner, all the 13 CPIOs mentioned in the CIC's notice dated 23.01.2018 has been served a copy of the notice for compliance of the directions of CIC along with a copy to Public Authority, the office of Secretary (MA) and US (RTI) vide letter dated 25-01-2018.
7. As per para 3 of order stating the decision of Hon'ble Information Commissioner that I forwarded the RTI application and Commission's Order dated 13.07.2017 to all the CPIOs and I was not sure whether there is anybody to Coordinate between these 14 CPIOs, it is submitted that I forwarded the Commission's order dated 13.07.2017 along with all the relevant documents including RTI application dated 26.04.2016 of Shri Kailash to all the CPIOs for compliance of the decision of CIC's and simultaneously also requested CPIOs to provide the information to the applicant as all the CPIOs in simultaneously also requested to CPIOs to provide the information to the applicant as all the CPIOs in the Ministry should have to be known about the decision of CIC for compliance. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per procedure followed in this Ministry, Nodal Officer (RTI) is forwarding the RTI application to all the concerned CPIOs in the Ministry for providing the information to the applicant directly for the part of information for which he is custodian as an the individual CPIO and the individual CPIO is providing information for the part of application for whim the CPIO is the custodian of the information.
8. It is also pertinent to mention here that at present, I am holding the charge of Vigilance Division, Anglo Indian Community & National Minorities Development & Finance Commission, a CPSE and Separate Public Authority under this Ministry. The information relating to NMDTC has already been provided to the Appellant by the then US & CPIO, Shri Ujjawal Kumar Sinha vide letter dated 03.06.2016. After attending the CIC's hearing on 04.01.2018, all the CPIOs were again requested same day to provide the information to the applicant under intimation to me within 10 days as per the verbal directions of Hon'ble CIC.
9. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per information provided by Shri K.B. Singh, US (Skill) & CPIO, the RTI application of Shri Kailash dated 26.04.2016, when received prior to my joining in this Ministry, was forwarded by Shri Sanjay CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 Page 15 Arora, the then CPIO & Nodal Officer (RTI) to US (RML/MSDP) & CPIO, US (FC/MAEF) & CPIO and US (Scholarship) & CPIO.
10. The Hon'ble Information Commissioner may like to peruse from the above stated facts that I joined this Ministry in October, 2016 and was not in the Ministry at the material time of filing of RTI application dated 26th April, 2016, and its disposal by concerned First Appellate Authorities. Further undersigned as CPIO is not directly dealing with any schemes of the Ministry and as stated in para 8 above, information regarding my present jurisdiction has also been provided by the then US*CPIO, Shri Ujjawal Kumar Sinha. Thus, I am not liable for the denial of information sought. Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that no penalty may be imposed on the undersigned. I also humbly request the Hon'ble Information Commissioner that the Show Cause notice issued vide order dated 4th January, 2018 may kindly be considered as dropped in so far as the undersigned is concerned.
11. It is humbly requested that this reply may kindly be placed before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner in compliance of order of Show Cause Notice passed in Case No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 dated 4th January, 2018, for his kind consideration and passing an order, in so far as the undersigned is concerned, as prayed in para 10 above".
17. Shri Sami Ahmed Khan, CPIO & USduring the hearing submitted that he assumed the charge of CPIO/US on 23.11.2017. He further submitted that the order dated 04.01.2018 was complied. Shri Sandeep Kumar Sharma, CPIO & US submitted that most of the 14 Under Secretaries joined the Ministry after the first appeal was filed. In addition, Smt. Hem Lata, US & CPIO submitted that she forwarded the notice/direction of the Commission to all the CPIOs in the Ministry and they were informed that the information was supposed to be provided by each one of them. She further submitted that RTI Cell was setup in the Ministry in compliance of the guidelines of the DoPT. In this case, the RTI application was circulated to the CPIOs concerned to the particular schemes and this record is available in the RTI Cell.
18. Shri Pradeep Kumar, US (Waqf) submitted that he provided information to the appellant on 18.05.2016 and the same was acknowledged by the appellant in his first appeal. He further submitted that since point no. 2 concerns to him, he provided the information as sought by the appellant. Shri U.K. Sinha, US (MSDP) submitted that at the time of RTI was filed he was concerned with only with point no. 2 and information sought was provided to the appellant and the same was upheld by the FAA. He further submitted that complete information relating to the schemes were also provided to the appellant. Shri Geeta Mishra, US submitted CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 Page 16 that she was looking after MSDP section and information as sought was provided to the appellant. Shri Suresh Yadav, US submitted that he is concerned with free coaching/scheme and information regarding the same was provided to the appellant as per the directions of the CIC.Shri Ravi Chandra, CPIO and Shri Md. Nadeem, CPIO submitted that at the time of RTI application was filed, the Haj division section was not in existence and after the Commission ordered to provide information on 04.01.2018, complete information was provided to the appellant relating to his queries.
19. The Commission upon perusal of records and hearing submissions of all the CPIOs finds that information as sought by the appellant was provided in compliance of this Commission's order dated 04.01.2018. The explanations of all the 14 CPIOs are satisfactory and reasonable, hence penalty proceedings are dropped.
20. Further, as per section 4(1)(b)(xii) of the RTI Act, which reads as under:
4. Obligations of public authorities.--
(1) Every public authority shall--
(b) publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,--
(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
The Commission directs the respondent public authority, the Ministry of Minority Affairs to publish on their official website in compliance of the above section, the list of schemes, eligibility, criterion, timelines, beneficiaries and the date on which and account in which they received the benefits such as scholarships or subsidies and to update the disclosure every month. Disposed of.
SD/-
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/BS/A/2016/001301 Page 17