Central Information Commission
Mr. Atul Kumar G. Shah vs Central Information Commission on 2 May, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000565/18698
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000565
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. A.G.Shah
D- 10/6,KAPS township
P0: Anumala, Dist- Tapi
Pin- 394651,Gujarat
Respondent : Mr. S. Padmanabha,
CPIO & Dy. Secretary Central Information Commission 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 RTI application filed on : 11/10/2011 PIO replied : 31/10/2011 First Appeal : 22/11//2011 First Appellate Authority order : 27/12/2011 Second Appeal received on : 31/01/2012 The Appellant had sought information regarding the departmental proceedings conducted against the employee of the organization also seeking information on Labour Welfare offices, of NPCIL and service matter and movable and immovable property of Shri. R. K. Bhiksham of KAPS NPCIL.
Sl. Queries Objections of appellant to reply
1 Please provide certified copy of entire records generated in CPIO-C.I.C. sought Rs 94 towards fee.
respect of Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001665/SG. Information must be provided free of cost.
2. Please provide action taken report on my representation dated As per letter dated.14.l1.2011,it is
18/01/2011 seeking appropriate action against the vindictive mentioned "No action has been initiated / no
action by the public authority-NPCIL, as it was apprehended reasons mentioned on record". I request Ms
in my second appeal. Anita Gupta-AA-C.I.C disclose the
i) If it was not considered, by when my aforesaid plea will be information related to my query while
considered? hearing of 1st Appeal.
ii) If my plea is not to be considered please give reasons, as to how my plea dated: 18/01/2011 does not Constitute a case of vindictive action by the public authority.
3. Please provide video recording (in a CD or DVD) of hearing Not enclosed.
of 2nd Appeal no CIC/SM/A/ 2010/001665/SG.
4. Time limit for providing information, against my 2nd Appeal As per information provided by NodalCPI0- no CIC/SM/A/ 2010 /001665/SG was 10.10.2011, however as ClC, on 11.10.11, Public Authority-NPCIL, failed to provide any "No record available for proceedings of information and thereby done contempt of decision/order of content of decision of CIC.. I request Ms Information Commissioner. Please give information for legal Anita Gupta- AA-CIC to initiate legal proceeding initiated on Public Authority-NPCIL for contempt proceedings on AA-NPCIL., & disclose the of the decision/order of Information Commissioner Mr. same in form of information, while hearing Shailesh Gandhi. of 1st Appeal..
5. Under which clause of R.T.1. Act, Information Commissioner Queries were curtailed arbitrarily by Page 1 of 8 Mr. Shailesh Gandhi, enforced/compelled me to curtail R.T.1. Information Commissioner Mr.Shailesh queries whereas as per R.T.I. Act, is silent for no. of queries? Gandhi, hence this query is directly related Although I was ready to wait to my case file no ClC/SM/A/2010 / beyond 30 calendar days, (as I mentioned in 2nd appeal), and 1665/SG. AA-Ms Anita Gupta may please question wise justification was also submitted in consider query while hearing of Ist appeal. prescribed format of 2nd appeal, where was need to enforce/compel the applicant, to curtail the list of queries to only 23 out of 75 queries by Information Commissioner Mr. Shailesh Gandhi?
6. Will Chief Information commissioner scrutinize compulsion, This query is directly related to my case file imposed on me, by Mr. Shailesh Gandhi for no CIC/ SM/A/ 2010/1665/SG. AA-Ms curtailing queries and thereby giving undue favor to Public Anita Gupta- may please consider query Authority-NPCIL? Will Chief Information while hearing of 1st Appeal Commissioner re-arranges hearing of 2nd Appeal through full . bench of the CIC? -
7. I have clearly mentioned the detriment suffered in seeking I am eligible for compensation, for amount information from the NPCIL and requested for the of Rs 50000/-. This query is directly related compensation of Rs 50,000/-.Although my appeal was to my case file no CIC/SM/ allowed, I.C. Mr. S. Gandhi did not pass the A/2010/l665/SG. AA-Ms Anita Gupta may compensation, ignoring my struggle since 07.09.2010 to please sanction compensation of Rs 50000/ obtain information. I have strong apprehension on from PA-NPCIL before hearing of 1st decision of I.C. for non-sanctioning of compensation of Its Appeal. 50,000/-. Chief Information Commissioner may please give information about date of hearing of my 2nd Appeal, to review all decisions through full bench of the CIC.
8. Whereas my 2 appeal was allowed by I.C. Mr Shailesh My query is quite genuine. Although my 2nd Gandhi, he did not impose penalty on P.l.O. for appeal was allowed by IC. Mr. Shailesh malafidely denying disclosing information, by misuse of Gandhi, he did not impose penalty. on PIO. section 7 (9). The discretionary power was misused for malafiidely denying disclosing by Mr. Shailesh Gandhi to give undue favor to NPCIL information, by misuse of section 7 (9). whereas it is fact that (A) Most of the information Ms Anita Gupta may please impose penality which I sought is related to corruption. (B) 1 am struggling on PlO- NPClL while hearingof 1st Appeal. since 07.09.2010, for obtaining information under R:T.l.Act-2005. I have strong apprehension on decision of I.C. for non-imposing penalty on P.l.O. Chief Information Commissioner may please give information about date of hearing of my 2 Appeal, to review all decisions, of I.C. through full bench of the CIC.
9. Whereas my 2nd appeal was allowed by Information My query is quite genuine. I have strong commissioner Mr.Shailesh Gandhi, he did not apprehension on decision of I C Mr recommend any disciplinary action on.Appellate Authority, Shailesh Gandhi for non-recommendation who had erroneously expressed agreement with of disciplinary proceeding on Appellate the decision of CPIO,-Mechanically for disposing my1st Authority. Mr S.Thakur. Ms Anita ' may Appeal. I had written in my 2nd appeal that please consider issue of recommending approach of AA is in defiance to OM no.10/23/2007-I.R. disciplinary proceedings on Appellate dated 09/07/2007 issued by Government of India, Authority Mr S.Thakur, while hearing of 1st Ministry of personnel, Public Grievances and Penion, DoPT, Appeal. New Delhi. Mr. Shailesh Gandhi-Information commissioner simply ignored my argument, which I wrote in 2nd Appeal page-5 & I.C. misused discretionary power to give undue favor to NPCIL, whereas it is fact that i am struggling since 07.09.20 10, for obtaining information under R.T.l.Act-2005. I have strong apprehension on decision of I.C. for non-recommendation of disciplinary proceeding on Appellate Authority-Mr.S.Thakur. Chief Information Commissioner may pleasegive information about date of hearing of 2nd Appeal, to review all decisions of IC Page 2 of 8 through full bench of the CIC.
10. How an objective of transparency thro R.T.1. Act, met by PIO & AA-NPCIL. had misused Section Info. Commissioner Mr.S.Gandhi, when he 7(9) for disposal of my RT I . l am enforced/compelled me to curtail query no 65,66 & 67 for requesting to disclose information u/s 24.1 rotation of sensitive post in NPCIL, whereas it is fact that in of R.T I Act. Moreover I C. Mr. S.Gandhi C.IC. Itself, portfolio was rotated/ exchanged among curtailed the query. I request Ms Anita information commissioners during recent past? Gupta- AA-C.IC to direct PIO. or AA-
NPCIL, to disclose the information related to sensitive posts.
11. How an objective of transparency thro R.T.1. Act, met by PIO& AA-NPClL had misused section7 (9) Info. Commissioner Mr.S.Gandhi, when he to for disposal of my R.T.I Moreover I C. Mr. enforced/compelled curtail query no 50(a) for vigilance S.Gandhi curtailed the query, by misusing complaints & 50(b) for vigilance inquiries on Mr. R. discretionary power.. I request Ms Anita Bhiksham? Gupta- AA-.C I.C. to direct P I O. or AA-
NPCIL, to disclose the Information related to vigilance inquiries/, complaints on Mr R.Bhiksham.
12. How an objective of transparency thro R.T.I Act, met by Info. PlO & AA-NPCIL had misused Section Commissioner Mr.S.Gandhi, when he enforced/compelled me 7(9) for to curtail query no 51 to 57 which are related to failure of HR disposal of my RT.I Moreover I C. Mr. section KAPS to put proper checks on shop keepers? S.Gandhi curtailed the query by misusing discretionary power. I request Ms Anita Gupta- AA-C I C. to direct P.I.O. or AA-NPCIL. to disclose the information related to failure of HR section KAPS to put proper checks an shop keepers.
13. How an objective of transparency thro R.T.I. Act, met by PlO & AA- NPCIL had misused Section Info. Commissioner Mr.S.Gandhi, when he enforced I 7(9) for compelled me to curtail query no 40 to 41 which are related to Disposal of my RTI .Moreover I C. failure of HR section of different units of NPCIL to settle Mr.S.Gandhi curtailed the query by employee's grievances in stipulated time? misusing discretionary power.I request Ms Anita Gupta- AA-C I.C. to direct PIO or AA-NPCIL,- to disclose the information related to failure of HR section of different units of NPCIL to settle employee's grievances in stipulated time.
14. How an objective of transparency thro R.T.I. Act, met by PlO & AA-NPCIL had misused Section Info. Commissioner Mr.S.Gandhi, when he enforced / 7(9) for . disposal of myRTI compelled me to curtail query no 24 to 30 which are related to &I,C.Mr.S.Gandhi curtailed the query, by improper utilization of services of Labour Welfare Officers misusing diseretionary power. I request Ms by HR section-KAPSNPCIL may be against the as per law? Anita Gupta AA-C IC to direct PIO Allegation can be proved only if proper information is orAA-NPCIL ,to disclose the information disclosed by public authority. - related to improper utilization of services of Labour Welfare Officers by HR section-
KAPS- NPCIL may be against the as per law.
15. How an objective of transparency thro R.T.I: Act met by PlO & AA NPCIL had misused Section 7(9) Info. Commisioner Mr.S.Gandhi, when he for disposal of my RTI .Moreover I C. enforced/compelled me to curtail query no 33 related to while Mr.S.Gandhi ,curtailed the query, by availing LTC in different units of.NPCIL which is -most misusing discretionary power. I request Ms venerable Anita Gupt- AA-C.I C. to area of corruption? Allegation can be proved only if proper direct PIO. or AA-NPCIL, to disclose the information is disclosed by public authority . information related to availing LTC in Page 3 of 8 different units of NPCIL which is most venerable area of corruption.
16. How an objective of transparency thro R.T.I. Act, met by PlO & AA-NPCIL has misused Section Info. Commissioner Mr.S.Gandhi, when he enforced me to 7(9) for curtail query no 36,37,38,39 which are related td probable disposal of my RTI. Moreover. I C. Mr. failure of HR-section KAPS to endorse various notifications/ S.Gandhi circulars issued by head office-Mumbai, for providing curtailed the query, by misusing services to employees? discretionary Power. I request Ms Anita Gupta- AA-
C.l.C: to direct PIO. or AA-NPCIL, to disclose the Information related to failure of HR-section KAPS to endorse various notifications?
circulars issued by head office-Mumbai, for providing services to employees.
17. How an objective of transparency thro R.T.I; Act met by Info. PlO &. AA- NPCIL had misused Section Commissioner Mr.S.Gandhi, when he enforced me to 7(9) for disposal of my RTI. Moreover I C. curtail query no 44,45,46,47,48,49 which is related to service Mr. S.Gandhi curtailed the query, by matters, extension of service and appointing him as advisor to misusing discretionary power.I .request Ms Mr. R. Bhiksham which is most venerable & prone area of Anita Gupta- AA-C.l.C. to direct PIO. or corruption? AA-CPIL to disclose the information related to service matters, extension of service and appointing him as advisor to Mr. R.Bhiksham which is most venerable & prone area of corruption.
18. How an objective of transparency thro R.T.I Act met by Info. PlO & AA-NPCIL had misused Section Commissioner Mr. S.Gandhi, when he enforced me to curtail 7(9) for disposal of my R.T.I. Moreover I.C. query no 70 which is related to "OUT OF TURN" allotment Mr. S.Gandhi curtailed the query, by of quarters which is most venerable & prone area of misusing discretionary power. I request Ms corruption? Allegation can be proved only if proper Anita Gupta' AA-CIC. To direct P.I 0. or information is disclosed by public authority. AA-NPCIL, to disclose the 'information related to "OUT OF TURN allotment of quarters which is in most venerable & prone area of Corruption.
19. Information may be provided for action initiated on This query is directly related to my case file Information Commissioner for (a) Deciding 2nd Appeal, just no-' CIC/SM/A/2OIO/1665/SG since it's a by ignoring the brief facts, which I wrote at page no 4,5,6,& 7 matter of misuse of discretionary power by and clarification on point wise questions at page no 8, 9,and information - commissioner Mr.Shailesh 10 for 75 questions (b) making extreme hurry to finish the Gandhi during hearing. 'Ms Anita Gupta- hearing; 0f 2nd Appeal. In fact arguments I wrote in 2 nd AA-C.IC. may please arrange - hearing of Appeal are self-explanatory, and the I.C. completely ignored Appeal through full bench of C.I.C,. the same.
20. Information may be provided for action initiated on This query is directly related to my case file Information Commissioner for not giving me' any chance to no CIC/SM/A/20l0/1665/SG,since it is a speak & straight away instructing reader to type write the matter of misuse of discretionary power by noting and haphazardly complete the hearing. My allegation information commissioner Mr Shailesh may please be confirmed by Chief Information commissioner, Gandhi during hearing of Appeal through by watching the video recording of Hearing of my 2 nd Appeal. full bench of C.IC. - Note: - Hearing was completed in least possible time.
21. Information may be provided for action initiated on This query is directly related to my case file Information Commissioner for going through only no. CIC/SM/A/2O10/1665/SG, since it is a first question during entire hearing and simply ignoring rest of matter of misuse of discretionary power by questions plus justifications thereon. My allegation may be information commissioner Mr Shailesh Page 4 of 8 confirmed by Chief Information commissioner, by watching Gandhi during hearing. Ms Anita Gupta-
the video recording of hearing AA-C.I.C. may please arrange hearing of
2nd Appeal. Appeal through Ml bench of C.I.C.
22. Curtailing the no of questions is attack on my fundamental This query is directly related to my case file
right under RT.I Act. Will Chief Information commissioner no. CIC/SM/ A/2010/l665/SG.since it-is a
scrutinize the curtailment of questions? Will Chief matter-of misuse of discretionary power&
Information commissioner certify that objective of R.T.I. Act by information commissioner Mr .Shailesh
to bring transparency in government functioning met in Gandhi during hearing. Ms Anita Gupta-
instant case of my 2nd appeal, by compelling applicant to AA-C I.C may please arrange hearing of
curtail no of questions from 75 to merely 23? Will Chief appeal through full bench of CIC.
Information Commissioner declare the no of queries'
curtailment process "illegal" & arrange hearing of 2 Appeal, (to review all decisions) through full bench of the CIC.?
23. Please provide copies of the complaints relating to vindictive Ms Anita Gupta- AA-C I.C. may please action received against the NPCIL by the CIC in the matter arrange hearing of Appeal through full where appeal/ complaints have been heard by the DC, since bench of CIC. the date CIC was formed till the date of providing information of this R.T.I.
24. Will Chief Information Commissioner, see the video This query is directly related to my case file recording of hearing of my Appeal and observe that I no - CIC/ SM/A/2010/1665/SG, since it is a requested Information Commissioner to give some more time matter of misuse of discretionary power by to NPCIL authorities to reply remaining queries, BUT information commissioner Mr.Shailesh Information Commissioner Mr. S; Gandhi simply ignored my Gandhi during hearing. Ms Anita Gupta- request Isn't it injustice to me? AA-C I.C. may please arrange hearing of Appeal through full bench of CIC.
25. Information Commissioner & reader jointly put hurdle by This query is directly related to my case file demoralizing me during ongoing quasi-judicial proceedings no - CIC/ SM/A/2010/1665/SG, since it is a of2nd Appea1. i;e." When reader observed that l am bold matter of misuse of discretionary power by enough to justify & reply queries of Info. Commissioner, information commissioner Mr.Shailesh reader interrupted me during hearing, saying that Mr.A. G Gandhi during hearing. Ms Anita Gupta- Shah, you should have attended hearing thro video AA-C I.C. may please arrange hearing of conferencing at NIC-Surat-Gujarat,". This was nothing but a Appeal through full bench of CIC. motivated attempt of putting hurdle in quasi-judicial Proceeding of R.T.I Act. Information may be provided for disciplinary action initiated on reader & Information Commissioner for putting hurdle during quasi-judicial proceedings of R TI .My allegation may be confirmed by Chief Information commissioner, by watching the video recording of hearing of my 2nd Appeal -
26. 26. Following information must be available with the CIC In interest of justice, information on this being annual return filed the NPCIL if these are not available query may please be given, OR -
please transfer my query to the P.1.O.-NPCIL U/s 6(3LofRTI application may please be transferred to
Act'2005. PIO.-NP..C.I L. Ms. Anita Gupta- AA-CIC,
Year may please do needful.
.
No of R.T.1. applications received by
PIO-NPCIL( 2005-11)
No of.
R.T.I.
Disposed by P.1.0.( 2005-11)
No of Ist appeals received by
AA(2005-11)
No of 1st appeals disposed of by AA, simply expressing
erroneous agreement with P.I.0.(2005-11)
No of R.T.I request where clause no 7(9) used for disposal by P.l.O/AA(2005-11) Page 5 of 8
27. It is on records that PA-NP CIL. is habitual of misusing From query no 27, it is very clear that I C clause 7(9) for denial of information under R.T.I. Act. Mr Shailesh Gandhi has misused his Mr.R.R.Kakde and Mr.S.Thakur together disposed off many discretionary power, Ms Anita Gupta AA- R.T.I. applications, just by interrupting the clause 7(9) as per CIC. may please arrange hearing of Appeal their wish. It is on record that Mr.S.Thakur both had disposed through full bench of CIC. off my.1st APPEAL vide order no NPCIL ED(CP) /2007/83 dated l3.07.2007->(a) without mentioning the clause of R.T.I. Act for rejection of my Ist .appeal (b) without intimating me where to write/approach for 2nd appeal. Now Information Commissioner Mr.Shailesh Gandhi boosted. the moral of PA-NPCIL by compelling me to curtail no of queries to merely 23 in place of 75. Whether info. Commissioner Mr.Shailesh Gandhi isn't interested to bring transparency in public sectors like NPCIL?
28. Will Chief Information Commissioner, see the video graphic This query is directly related to my case file recording of 2nd Appeal no CIC /SM /A,' no - CIC/ SM/A/2010/1665/SG, since it is a 2010/001665 /SG and observe/realize how the approach of matter of misuse of discretionary power by Information Commissioner Mr. S.Gandhi was autocratic? (In information commissioner Mr.Shailesh fact while introducing self, before starting hearing, Mr. Gandhi during hearing. Ms Anita Gupta- S.Gandhi, OPENLY threatened to dismiss the entire 2nd AA-C I.C. may please arrange hearing of Appeal, if I don't agree to curtail no of queries. Mr. S.Gandhi Appeal through full bench of CIC. used his vast experience for demoralizing & depressing the applicant rather than doing justice. Whoever impartial commissioner will rather rely. more on written content put up, while submitting 2nd appeal, instead of resorting to put psychological pressure to compel applicant to curtail the QUERIES. In instant case I.C. Mr.S.Gandhi found putting psychological pressure to compel R.T.I. applicant to curtail queries. Will Chief Information commissioner re-arrange hearing of 2nd Appeal (to review all decisions taken by 1. C. Mr. Shailesh Gandhi) through full bench of the CIC?
29. Chief Information Commissioner, may please see the video- This query is directly related to my case file graphic recording of 2nd Appeal no CIC/SM/A) no - CIC/ SM/A/2010/1665/SG, since it is a 2010/001665/SG, and observe that before commencement of matter of misuse of discretionary power by hearing of appeal, I had given representation, with six information commissioner Mr.Shailesh important attachments, which were closely related to 2nd Gandhi during hearing. Ms Anita Gupta- Appeal, (Copy is AA-C I.C. may please arrange hearing of attached herewith) but my representation was not taken on Appeal through full bench of CIC. record during hearing and the same was returned by IC. to me. I was compelled to make its inward entry at office other than club building located at 4th floor of office of C.I.C. in same old JNU complex, (where inward entry of posts being done). Will Chief Information commissioner consider my representation, while hearing of 2nd Appeal (to review all decisions taken by I.C. Mr. Shailesh Gandhi) through full bench of the CIC in due course?
30. Please provide copies of the complaints, (in following format) C.I.C. is formed for bringing transparency of all nature, received against the Information Commissioners in entire India. Please disclose this of the since the date CIC was formed till the date information information so that obiect of transparency is provided. may please be achieved by C.I.C. I have Name of the Information Commissioner against whom registered a complaint against Mr.Shailesh complaint is received (2005-11) Gandhi and through this query,I wish to Total number of Complaints received against the Information know how CIC. is dealing with complaints Commissioner(2005-11) against Information Commissioners Ms Name of the Complaint and CIC case no.(2005-11) Anita Gupta-.AA-CIC. may please arrange Action taken by the CIC hearing ofAppea1 through full bench of C.I Page 6 of 8 On the complaint received against the Information C. Commissioner.( 2005-11)
31. Whereas, even Prime Minister and Member of Parliament had This query is directly related to my case file declared their assets on web. site, will Chief Information no - CIC/ SM/A/2010/1665/SG, since it is a commissioner scrutinize the denial by Information matter of misuse of discretionary power by Commissioner Mr. Shailesh Gandhi to let. me know the information commissioner Mr.Shailesh property details of Sh.R.Bhiksham by compelling me to Gandhi during hearing. Ms Anita Gupta- curtail question pertaining to property details of Sh. AA-C I.C. may please arrange hearing of R.Bhiksham? Isn't it collusion with Public Authority-NPCIL? Appeal through full bench of CIC. Will Chief Information commissioner, again arrange hearing of 2nd Appeal, through full bench of the CIC?
Grounds for the First appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply provided by the PIO. Order of the FAA:
FAA ordered that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 27th dec 2011 through video conferencing where CPIO was also present in FAA's office and heard it. For query 1-4 appellant has been advised to fill a fresh application and to the rest queries CPIO had sent reply to the appellant. First ground of appeal is against the decision of the nodal CPIO to reply on one subject. The contention of the appellant is not acceptable as the other queries do not share an embryonic relationship. In query 1, the information sought from the CPIO, CIC is not compliance with the order of the commission. In query 2 , CPIO informed the appellant that no action has been initiated as no reasons have been recorded , CPIO could not have provided the same. In query no. 4, the appellant had sought information regarding the time limit of the legal proceedings, the action that is to be taken in future is not covered under the RTI Act 2005, so the appellant can file a complaint of non-compliance before the commission.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply provided by the FAA. Relief being sought is that a full bench should review the decision given by IC Mr. Shailesh Gandhi.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. S. Padmanabha, CPIO & Dy. Secretary alongwith deemed PIOs;
The Commission notes that the information available on the records has been provided to the appellant. The Appellant's main grievance is that he is dissatisfied with the orders given by Shailesh Gandhi, Information Commissioner. The PIO cannot do anything in this matter and if an appellant is not satisfied with an order of the Commission his relief could lie only in filing a writ in the High Court against the said decision.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
Information available on the records appears to have been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 02 May 2012 Page 7 of 8 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 8 of 8