Central Information Commission
Tushar Kanti vs Office Of The Chief Commissioner For ... on 14 December, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/OCCPD/A/2020/116842
Tushar Kanti ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Chief Commissioner
For Persons with Disabilities, RTI Cell,
Sarojini House, 6 Bhagwan Dass Road,
New Delhi - 110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24/11/2021
Date of Decision : 24/11/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03/08/2019
CPIO replied on : 14/10/2019
First appeal filed on : 01/02/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30/05/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.08.2019 seeking the following information:
1. "Whether the Chief Commissioner, % CCPD, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India, New Delhi, is fully aware of the fact that all the elevated Railway Stations at Sealdah-Dankuni Section (Rajchandrapur, Bally Halt, Ballyghat, Dakshineswar (Up Platform), Baranagar, Dum Dum and Bidhan Nagar) under Eastern Railway are devoid of any facility for the persons with Disabilities/Pwds;
2. If so, whether any remedial action is needed to be taken by the Chief Commissioner, % CCPD, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India, New Delhi;
3. If so, whether the Chief Commissioner, % CCPD, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India, New Delhi, has already taken/proposed to be taken any remedial action to safeguard the rights and dignity of the Persons with Disabilities;
4. If so, details thereof;
5. If not therefor;
6. Whether it is a fact that - construction of Under Pass/Subway is feasible and beneficial for the Persons with Disabilities than construction of Foot Over Bridge/FOB at Rajchandrapur Railway Station.
7. If so, whether the Chief Commissioner, % CCPD, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India, New Delhi has any role and taken action to safeguard the rights of PwDs at Rajchandrapur and its vicinity by observing, advising and ensuring the construction of an Under Pass/Subway rather than a Ramp and in any case in place of a Foot Over Bridge/FOB.
8. If so, whether the Chief Commissioner, % CCPD, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt, of , , % , , . India, New Delhi has any role and taken action to safeguard the rights of PwDs at Rajchandrapur and its vicinity while Eastern Railway is - (1) allowing "encroachment" on its own land to squatters and (2) thereby giving FALSE reply like "the ramp cannot construct due to lack of sufficient space at the station" and "whenever space will be available the same may be built"?
9. If so, what is the role of the Chief Commissioner, % CCPD, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India, New Delhi while such FALSE replies are given by Central Government Agencies like Eastern Railway which amounts to blatant violation of RPwD Act -- 2016 and which may 2 jeopardise the very existence of such an Act and if it continues to happen such an Act would become infructuous, questionable and your Court would become such an ill-fated institution which is, in all practical purposes, failing to protect the interest of the Persons with Disabilities and thus working against the spirit of the Act -- which has been enacted in favour of Persons with Disabilities;
10. If not, whoever, is responsible for this job;
11. Whether the Chief Commissioner, % CCPD, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India, New Delhi has any role and taken action to safeguard the rights of PwDs at Bally Ghat and Bally Halt Railway Stations and its vicinity by observing, advising and ensuring the installation of Lifts AND construction of a ramp from Ticket Counters to Platforms;
12. Whether it is a fact that the Chief Commissioner, % CCPD, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India, New Delhi, is mandated to safeguard the rights and dignity of the Persons with Disabilities and NOT to enjoy the benefits of his posting as Chief Commissioner only;
13. If so, has he taken any action on the instant issues -- a) suo-motu, (2) on the basis of complaints;
14. If so, has he ever visited the places to observe the reality at Ground Zero;
15. If so, has he ever sought any report from the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
16. If so, has he issued any direction/s for Social Audit by the % Commissioner for PwD. W.B. or any other Agency; and
17. If not, reasons for his total ineffectiveness to safeguard the rights and dignity of the Persons with Disabilities on such an burning issue and holding such an coveted post ineffectively for so many years?"
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the appellant on 14.10.2019 stated as follows:-
Point No. 1 to 13:- Order has already been passed in Case No.7134/1101/2016 wherein the respondent (Eastern Railways) was directed to act under Section 45(1) of the RPwD Act, 2016 so that persons with disabilities shall not be deprived of their legitimate rights. A detailed reply has also been sought from the respondent in the matter. No reply has been received so far from Railways. Point No. 14:- No such information is available in this office. Point No. 15:- No such report has been sought from the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.
Point No. 16:- No such information is available/held in this office.3
Point No.17:- Information sought by you does not fall under the definition of information. It is also informed that under the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is required to furnish the information, which is available with him, he is not supposed to create/interpret information.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.02.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Sudhir Goel, Desk Officer & CPIO present through audio conference.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the RTI Application.
The Appellant argued that justice has not been administered to him in the instant case and insisted for directions to be ordered in this regard. He further alleged that the Railways does not even respond to the communications sent by CCPD.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information that has been sought for in the RTI Application as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon as the queries raised by the Appellant do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought for interpretations and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO based on speculative queries.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. 4 Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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." (Emphasis Supplied) However, since the issues raised by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application concerns the larger public interest of the citizens, the Commission advises the CPIO to adequately liaise with the Railways to expedite the necessary action in the matter. A copy of this order is also marked to the Chairman, Railway Board to look into the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5 Copy to:
Chairman Railway Board Room No. 256-A, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi, Delhi 110001
--(For taking necessary action) 6