Central Information Commission
Hari Nandan Singh vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) on 18 July, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2017/172023
Shri Hari Nandan Singh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Date of Hearing : 06.05.2024
Date of Decision : 10.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.07.2017
PIO replied on : 26.09.2017
First Appeal filed on : 14.08.2017
First Appellate Order on : NA
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 17.10.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), SAIL, Bokaro, seeking information on six points pertaining to the action taken by SAIL in respect of his complaints submitted to CEO, SAIL against officials of SAIL occupying the staff quarters for unauthorized construction, including, inter-alia, (i) a certified copy of the action taken against Shri Prashant Gupta, Technician (HRD), Bokaro Steel Plant in respect of his complaint dated 20.04.2017 regarding unauthorized construction in his quarter, and (ii) a certified copy of the action taken against Shri Anjani Kumar Avinash, AGM (Water Supply), Town Services Dept., Bokaro Steel Plant in respect of his complaint dated 20.04.2017.
The CPIO vide letter dated 26.09.2017 replied as under:-
"1&2&5) This is a sensitive matter and it will not be appropriate on, our part to disclose/ discuss these Issues mentioned at Sl No-1& 2 (sub) in public domain. Moreover other matters as mentioned at Sl No-1, has been referred to concerned authority for proper scrutiny and inspection. Regarding Sl No-2(i), forcibly entering someone's house, matter has been enquired & we have come to know that the above mentioned allegation is not correct. Moreover keeping the safety and maintenance aspect of huge numbers of quarters, BSL management has full right to inspect any house in 3 City as & when required.Page 1 of 9
3) Matter has already been explained at (1&2).
4) The terrace area available in the quarter is common are for all occupants and at the same time it is improper to put the terrace area under lock by any of the occupant. However in the interest of all occupants of the block, matter will be pursued for removal of key from terrace opening door but in that caged it will be made mandatory for of all occupants to remove all unauthorised structures like additional water tank from the terrace.
The fear issue relates to Law & order problem and the applicant may take up the matter with local Police to solve the issue.
6) The drawing of sewer line is not available with field service section."
The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that incomplete and misleading information has been provided to him by the CPIO. He contended that the CPIO failed to respond to his RTI application within the prescribed period and also did not provide any document/report relating to the action taken against the officials in the light of his complaint. The appellant requested the Commission to impose penalty upon the CPIO for the delay caused in responding to the RTI application and to award him compensation for the detriment suffered by him.
The hearing of the instant Second Appeal was conducted on 21.01.2019 and both the parties had participated in the hearing through video-conferencing. The Commission vide order dated 22.01.2019, inter-alia held as under :
"..7. In view of the above, the Commission directs the respondent to provide point- wise information to the appellant regarding the action taken against the officials against whom complaints had been filed by him, as sought vide point nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the RTI application. The Commission also directs the respondent to provide a copy of drawing of service lines, as available on records, to the appellant. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
8. The Commission further finds that the appellant's RTI applications is dated 13.07.2017 and the information has been provided to him by the CPIO vide letter dated 26.09.2017, i.e. after a delay of about a month from the time of receipt of the RTI application. Moreover, the CPIO stated that the Dept. concerned did not furnish the information sought to her in time. The Commission observes that the CPIO cannot escape his/her responsibility by merely saying that it is the duty of his/her sub- ordinates or the Dept. concerned to provide information. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed:
".....that a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. The Act as framed, castes Page 2 of 9 obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow."
9. In view of the above, the Commission directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a Show Cause Notice to the CPIO, Ms. Madhulika V. Kovale, Asstt. General Manager (Pers-Rules), Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Jharkhand for explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against her.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of..."
A Show-Cause Notice was issued to Ms. Madhulika V. Kovale, Asstt. General Manager (Pers-Rules) & CPIO, Steel Authority of India, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, Jharkhand on 02.04.2019 in compliance of the Commission's Order No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2017/172023 dated 22.01.2019 for not providing information/providing information after the stipulated period of time to the Appellant. The CPIO was directed to explain as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against her.
The show-cause proceedings were conducted on 25.06.2019 and 29.07.20219 and the Commission vide order dated 29.07.2019 stated as under :
"..Interim Decision:
12. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondents and perusing the records, observes at the outset that the RTI application was not appropriately dealt with by the CPIO and deemed CPIOs (Ms. Madhulika V. Kovale Assistant General Manager (Pers. Rules), Mr. Raj Vir Singh, Executive Director (P&A), SAIL RSP, Rourkela and the then GM (Town Administration) and the GM (Projects) which resulted in shuttling of the application from one officer to another and caused extreme delay in providing the information to the appellant. The Commission felt that the CPIO (Ms. Madhulika V. Kovale) should have transferred the RTI application, point wise, after due diligence to the real custodians of information within the mandatory period of five days as mentioned in Section 6 (3) RTI Act, 2005. Instead she mechanically transferred the RTI application based on hypothetical assumptions which resulted in unnecessary wastage of precious time. Moreover, as highlighted by Mr. Raj Vir Singh, Ms. Madhulika V. Kovale could have furnished an interim reply to the appellant with the available information and provided the reply on the remaining points as and when she received Page 3 of 9 it from the custodian of information. Therefore it is evident that there was a lapse on the part of the CPIO (Ms. Madhulika V. Kovale) resulting in the delay in providing a response to the appellant. As regards the lapse on the part of Mr. Raj Vir Singh, Executive Director (P&A), SAIL RSP, Rourkela and the then GM (Town Administration), the Commission observes that there is a failure on his part for not transferring the RTI application to the real custodian of information instead of returning the application back to the CPIO and AGM (Pers-Rules) after almost twenty days from the date of the receipt of the application. Similarly the GM (Projects) failed to perform his obligation under the RTI Act by replying to the RTI application after almost one month from date of its receipt which resulted in further delay in providing the response. The submission made by the CPIO (Ms. Madhulika V. Kovale) during the hearing that there was no malafide intention to provide a delayed response since she was unable to ascertain the real custodians of information also falls flat for the reason that Section 6(3) of the Act cannot be read to mean that the responsibility of a CPIO is only limited to forwarding the applications to different departments/office within a public authority. Moreover, the time limit of five days to transfer the application to the concerned CPIO is included in Section 6 (3) of the Act to provide sufficient time to the CPIO to identify the actual custodian of information. The High Court of Delhi in the matter J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 held that:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act.
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
13. In this context, the Commission also referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
Page 4 of 9"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
14. The Commission takes a very serious view of this lapse. The public information officers are entrusted with the responsibility of providing information to the citizen under the RTI Act. It is expected that the CPIO on receipt of a request shall as expeditiously as possible provide the information sought for by the applicant. In this case, the CPIO and the deemed CPIOs did not discharge their responsibilities properly. The Commission, therefore, would like to counsel the CPIO and deemed CPIOs, to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur and that the provisions of the RTI Act are implemented in letter and spirit.
15. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of..."
Subsequently, a corrigendum dated 01.10.2019 was issued by the Commission, wherein it was stated as under:
"..The decision no. CIC/SAIL1/A/2017/172023 dated 31.07.2019 of Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner Shri Sudhir Bhargava may be read as Main Decision instead of Interim Decision.,,"
The Appellant filed a Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand and challenged the orders of this Commission dated 31.07.2019 and 01.10.2019. The Hon'ble High court vide order dated 10/30.11.2023 inter-alia held as under :
"..3. Petitioner has appeared in person and submits that lenient view has been taken by the respondents - Information Commission. Instead of inflicting punishment under Section 20(1) and payment of compensation to the petitioner under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the respondents have given clean chit to Central Public Information Officer (Respondent No. 3) though he was held guilty of the charges for not furnishing report within the permissible time. Information was given after 1 year 9 months though it ought to have been given within a period of thirty days.Page 5 of 9
4. At the very outset it has been pointed out by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and learned counsel appearing on behalf of SAIL that the matter may be remitted back for considering the same afresh and passing of reasoned order in accordance with law.
5. In view of fair submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 2 for considering the matter afresh and to pass fresh reasoned order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
6. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of..."
Accordingly, a fresh notice of hearing has been issued to both the parties by the Registry of this Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Ms. Anju Singh GM(Pers)-participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
Written submission dated 15.03.2022 has been received from CPIO- Ms Anju Singh, GM(Pers) and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 27.04.2024 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 02.05.2024 has been received from the Respondent and same has been taken on record for perusal.
The Appellant reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the information sought in the instant RTI Application was not furnished to him within stipulated time frame of 30 days. He stated that the PIO has furnished incomplete, incorrect and misleading information vide letter dated 26.09.2017. He stated that complete information was furnished to him vide letter dated 26.04.2019 i.e. after filing of instant Second Appeal. He stated that there has been delay of 1 year 9 months and 13 days in furnishing the reply. He averred that the CPIO has not been able to give cogent reasons for the aforesaid delay of more than 1 year. He insisted to impose penalty upon the CPIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act and requested for payment of compensation of Rs 25,000/- under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for loss and other detriment suffered by him.Page 6 of 9
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the Appellant is an ex-employee of Bokaro Steel Plant and worked as an executive mostly in Projects Department. She averred that the as per their company's lease scheme the Appellant has been residing in the company's leased quarter with regular employee of Bokaro Steel plant. She submitted that there are several complaints made by the neighbours of the Appellant and officials of Town Administration against the Appellant regarding unauthorised construction in his quarter, but Appellant did not allow the officials of the company to inspect his quarter. Accordingly, a notice was also issued by the Town Administration department upon the Appellant in April 2017. She submitted that in order to avoid company's action against him the Appellant started filing numerous RTI Applications to harass the officials of the Bokaro Steel Plant. She stated that the Appellant never co-operated with the Town Administration and due to his unruly behaviour, the quarter adjacent to the quarter of the Appellant has remained vacant for 2 years which caused monetary loss of Rs 27,610/- to the Bokaro Steel Plant. She submitted that from the year 2017 till 2021 the Appellant has filed more than 13 RTI Applications either in his name or in the name of his wife and has clogged the system. The Respondent placed on record list of RTI Applications filed by the Appellant for redressal of his grievances related to quarter maintenance. She stated that the Appellant has sought information related to action taken on his complaints and same has been duly provided to him after completion of enquiry. She stated that the grievances/complaints are processed as per rules and the Appellant is trying to create pressure on the officials through his RTI Applications. She stated that there is no malafide intention to supress the information sought by the Appellant. She stated that the part information was supplied to the Appellant vide letter dated 26.09.2017 and complete information i.e. action taken on his complaints which were found to be baseless, has been duly provided to the Appellant after completion of enquiry/investigation vide letter dated 23.04.2019.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and submission made by both the parties observes that the Appellant has sought information with respect to the action taken on his complaints and matters related thereto in six points. Commission observes that the main contention of the Appellant in the instant case is that the complete information was not provided to him within stipulated time frame of 30 days. Commission notes that the information sought by the Appellant was related to the action taken on his complaints and as submitted by the PIO, part information was supplied to the Appellant vide letter dated 26.09.2017 and complete information i.e. action taken on his complaints which were found to be baseless, has been duly provided to the Appellant after completion of enquiry/investigation vide letter dated 23.04.2019.
Commission at this stage is not inclined to accept the contention of the RTI Applicant for imposition of penalty upon the CPIO in the absence of any malafide ascribed on their part. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter Page 7 of 9 of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
Additionally, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"....Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
Xxx ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
The Commission also notes that Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.6504 of 2009 Date of decision:04.03.2010 Page 8 of 9 (State of Punjab and others vs. State Information Commissioner, Punjab and another); had held as under:
"..3. The penalty provisions under Section 20 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty..."
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence, no action is warranted under 20 of the RTI Act.
Commission further observes that the action taken on the complaints of the Appellant has been duly provided to the Appellant after completion of enquiry/investigation and the Commission is not persuaded to believe that it caused any loss of detriment to him in terms of section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. Furthermore, the Appellant has not placed on record any evidence to prove that he has suffered any loss due to delay in furnishing the reply. Hence, no compensation is awardable to him.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no intervention of the Commission is warranted in these cases under RTI Act. No further action lies.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)