Central Information Commission
Sanjiv Chatruvedi vs Prime Minister'S Office on 16 July, 2019
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/PMOIN/A/2017/176627
Sanjiv Chaturvedi ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Prime Minister's Office, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07.08.2017 FA : 22.09.2017 SA : 15.11.2017
Hearing : 23.04.2019/
CPIO : 09.10.2017 FAO : 25.08.2017
17.06.2019
ORDER
1. The Commission, vide order dated 16.10.2018, had directed the CPIO to give specific reply/information on point nos. 1(b), 4, 5, 12 and 13 of the RTI application to the appellant and transfer point no. 10 to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
2. The appellant vide letter dated 14.11.2018 filed a non-compliance petition before the Commission objecting to the reply dated 01.11.2018 furnished to him by Page 1 of 8 the respondent in compliance of the Commission's order dated 16.10.2018. The appellant contended that incorrect and misleading information has been provided to him by the CPIO
3. The Commission vide order dated 28.02.2019 decided to hold a hearing in the matter.
Hearing on 23.04.2019:
4. The appellant Shri Sanjiv Chaturvedi attended the hearing through video- conferencing. The respondent Shri Parveen Kumar, Under Secretary (RTI) and CPIO, Prime Minister's Office, New Delhi, was present in person.
5. The appellant submitted that the Commission vide order dated 16.10.2018 had directed the respondent to give specific reply/information on point nos. 1(b), 4, 5, 12 and 13 of the RTI application dated 07.08.2017 to the appellant. Since, the CPIO did not challenge the Commission's order in a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court, he should have complied with the order of the Commission and provided the information sought for or deny the same under any of the exemptions specifically provided in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. However, the respondent instead of furnishing a specific reply/information to the appellant had raised fresh grounds to deny information to him. On point no. 1(b) of the RTI application, the CPIO has claimed that the information sought for is voluminous and scattered in various files across different sections of the PMO and hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The CPIO, however, cannot deny information under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act now as the same was not put forth during hearing before the Commission. The appellant further claimed Page 2 of 8 that Section 7(9) of the RTI Act does not empower the CPIO to deny information, which can be done only on the basis of grounds mentioned in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Section 7(9) of the RTI Act only says that in case of disproportionate diversion of resources, information may not be provided in the same format as asked by the applicant. With respect to point nos. 4 and 5 of the RTI application, he submitted that misleading and incorrect information has been provided to him by the respondent. The appellant stated that he had specifically sought to know the exact quantum of black money brought to the country since 2014 as well as the amount deposited into the bank accounts of the citizens of the country. Whereas, the CPIO's reply is silent to that effect, and rather he has resorted to denying the information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act on the ground that an Special Investigation Team (SIT) has been formed and an investigation in this regard is underway. He further stated that incomplete information has been provided to him on point nos. 12 and 13 of the RTI application as the CPIO has not yet provided the file noting relating to the processing of his request for an appointment with the Prime Minister of India. In view of the above, the appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the desired information to him as directed by the Commission vide its order dated 16.10.2018 and to award him compensation for the mental agony suffered by him due to non-supply of information by the respondent. In addition to the above, the appellant also requested to take necessary action against the CPIO under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act.
Page 3 of 8Interim Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that due to paucity of time, the hearing in the matter could not be concluded. Therefore, the matter is adjourned to 17.06.2019 at 11.40 AM.
Hearing on 17.06.2019:
7. The appellant Shri Sanjiv Chaturvedi attended the hearing through video- conferencing. The respondent Shri Parveen Kumar, Under Secretary (RTI) and CPIO, Prime Minister's Office, New Delhi, was present in person.
8. The respondent reiterated his written submissions dated 23.04.2019, a copy of which was also provided to the appellant on the same day by speed post. The respondent submitted that no new grounds have been taken by the respondent for denial of the information sought by the appellant vide point no. 1(b) of his RTI application. In fact, the CPIO has only reiterated the response given to the appellant earlier vide letter dated 16.10.2018 in compliance of the Commission's decision wherein the appellant had been informed that the information cannot be provided to him owing to voluminous record relating to the complaints on allegations of corruption received by the office against various Union Ministers/high level functionaries from time to time. The respondent further clarified that each complaint is examined and after taking the needful action, records are not kept in a single file but are scattered across different sections and units of PMO. Hence, providing copies of all the complaints received/submitted to PMO in respect of corruption charges from 01.06.2014 to 05.08.2017 along with Page 4 of 8 documents regarding action taken on each and every inquiry reports in this regard, to the appellant, would have to be compiled and collated which would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. Hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the appellant did not specify any particular complaint or a Minister against whom any complaint alleging corruption was filed. The respondent also cited the decision dated 09.08.2011 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay) wherein the Apex Court had specifically observed that "Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the Right to Information Act for disclosure of all and sundry information which is unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of pubic authorities would be counter-productive, as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information." With respect to point nos. 4 and 5 of the RTI application, he submitted that in compliance of the CIC's decision whereby the CPIO was asked to re-examine the request made by the appellant regarding quantum of black money brought back to the country since 2014 as well as the amount deposited into the bank accounts of the citizens of the country, the appellant has been informed that at present, an SIT has been formed to look into the matter and investigation process is underway, hence, providing the information at this stage would impede the process of investigation. In view of this, the disclosure of information sought vide point nos. 4 and 5 of the RTI application is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Further, the appellant has also been provided the status of his letter vide letters dated 06.03.2018 and 13.04.2018 in respect of point nos. 12 and 13 of his RTI application. Moreover, regarding the Page 5 of 8 status of request for appointment with Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, it was clarified that the appointments are fixed depending on the availability of time, convenience and subject matter of the request. Hence, the Commission's decision dated 16.10.2018 has been complied with and the information, as per the available records, has been already furnished to the appellant.
9. The appellant reiterated his earlier submissions which have been already taken on record. He further stated that the respondent has wrongly quoted the decision of the Supreme Court in CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra) which is not applicable to his case as the very purpose of the Act to usher transparency and accountability in the functioning of the Government will be defeated if a citizen is not allowed to seek information relating to corruption and steps taken by the Govt. to tackle it. Moreover, the respondent cannot adduce new grounds to deny the information sought by him in the RTI application which is non- compliance of the Commission's order dated 16.10.2018.
Decision:
10. The Commission vide order dated 16.10.2018 directed the respondent to give specific reply/information in response to point nos. 1(b), 4, 5, 12 and 13 of the RTI application dated 07.08.2017 to the appellant. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the respondent has provided specific reply in response to point nos. 1(b), 4, 5, 12 and 13 of the RTI application dated 07.08.2017 to the appellant, in compliance of the Commission's order dated 16.10.2018. The Commission notes the appellant's contention that in case there is disproportionate diversion of resources in compiling the information sought for, the respondent may not provide information in the form Page 6 of 8 which it has been sought, however, he is not empowered to deny the same. Hence, the reply provided by the respondent in response to point no. 1 of the RTI application is not correct. In this regard, the Commission notes that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04.12.2014 in case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011] has held as under:
"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."
11. The Commission vide order dated 16.10.2018 had not accepted the reply of the respondent that the "request made is not covered under definition of information". Hence, the respondent had to furnish a 'de-novo' reply in compliance with the order of the Commission dated 16.10.2018. The Commission agrees with the respondent's averment that since an SIT had already been formed and its investigation process was underway, it was felt that disclosure of all the action under taken by the government at that juncture may have impeded the whole process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of the offenders. The Commission also observes that information on point nos. 12 and 13 has been provided to the appellant as per the available records.
12. In view of the above, the Commission observes that the respondent has provided specific reply in compliance with order of the Commission dated Page 7 of 8 16.10.2018. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent has malafidely withheld information from the appellant. Hence, in the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the CPIO.
13. With the above observations, the non-compliance petition is disposed of.
14. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 18.06.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), Prime Minister's Office, South Block, New Delhi- 110011.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Prime Minister's Office, South Block, New Delhi- 110011.
3. Shri Sanjiv Chaturvedi Page 8 of 8