Central Information Commission
Paul Ekka vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 7 December, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.:- CIC/UIICL/C/2017/162448-BJ
Mr. Paul Ekka
.... िशकायतकता
/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
United India Insurance Co. Ltd
Regional Office Patna
Chanakya Commercial Complex, 3rd Floor
Patna - 800001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.12.2018
Date of Decision : 07.12.2018
Date of filing of RTI application 14.07.2017
CPIO's response 24.08.2017
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 06.09.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application incorrectly addressed to the FAA sought information regarding the action taken on his application dated 17.03.2017.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 24.08.2017 informed the Complainant that even though no RTI application was filed and an appeal was preferred to the FAA, the application was still treated an RTI application and not an Appeal. Thereafter a reply on the action taken on the letter mentioned in the RTI application was provided. Dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent;Page 1 of 5
Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Chief Regional Manager / FAA through VC;
The Complainant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Avinash Mahatul, Network Engineer NIC studio at Latehar confirmed the absence of the Complainant. The Respondent reiterated the response of the CPIO and its written submission sent to the Commission. It was informed that the Complainant was working as a Development Officer in their organization and on disciplinary grounds his services were terminated in 2009 against which he represented on 17.03.2017. His representation was also disposed as per extant guidelines. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 30.11.2018, wherein it was stated that the Complainant had joined their company at Katrasgarh Branch as Probationary Officer on 15.11.1996 and had applied for his resignation on 07.08.2003 which was rejected by the HO on 09.10.2003 on the ground of Vigilance Cases pending against him. The Complainant was charge sheeted for his unauthorized absence from duty since 15.07.2003 and the Disciplinary Authority after holding inquiry had imposed penalty of removal from service vide order dated 08.12.2009.
While referring to the application made by the Complainant dated 17.03.2017 addressed to the Chief Regional Manager, Appellate Authority, it was stated that on 24.08.2017, the CPIO had sent a reply informing the Complainant that even though the application was not strictly falling within the purview of RTI, it was not addressed to the CPIO and was made under the Company's CDA Rules, 2014 to the Appellate Authority. Despite, the above facts the application was treated as an RTI application and the available information was provided vide letter dated 24.08.2018. Moreover, the applicant's representation dated 17.03.2017 under the company's CDA Rules was also disposed by the Appellate Authority i.e., DGM HRM Mr. A. Padmanathan vide letter dated 02.08.2017 communicated to the Complainant. Thus, it was submitted that the allegation of the Complainant that his application for Appeal under the RTI Act was not replied was not factually correct. Rather, it was a representation under the CDA Rule which was duly replied by DGM HRM vide letter dated 02.08.2017. The Respondent was however, advised to endorse a copy of their written submission sent to the Commission to the Complainant, as well. The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
Page 2 of 535..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Page 3 of 5 Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
Page 4 of 5The Complainant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Complainant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
िबमल जु का)
Bimal Julka (िबमल का
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 07.12.2018
Page 5 of 5