Central Information Commission
Amandeep Goyal vs Shipping Corp. Of India Ltd. on 13 August, 2018
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No.: CIC/SCOTL/C/2017/176047
In the matter of:
Amandeep Goyal
...Complainant
Vs.
PIO, Executive Director (Legal Affairs) and Company
Secretary, the Shipping Corporation of India Limited,
Shipping House, 245 Madam Cama Road, Mumbai,
Maharashtra- 400021
...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 28.07.2016
CPIO reply : 01.08.2016
First Appeal : Not on Record
FAA Order : Not on Record
Complaint : 27.01.2017
Date of hearing : 27.04.2018, 27.07.2018
Facts:
The complainant vide RTI application dated 28.07.2016 sought information on five points; copy of the noting giving approval by the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) to publish an advertisement in the March 2016 edition of the magazine "Bureau Times"- An international Magazine, copy of the order issued by the Shipping Corporation of India in favour of the said magazine for publication of the said advertisement and other related information. The CPIO returned the original RTI application as no ID proof was attached with the RTI application. Aggrieved with the reply received from the respondent authority, the complainant filed a complaint under the provision of 1 Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 27.01.2017.
Grounds for Complaint The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Interim Order : 27.04.2018
Complainant : Absent
Respondent : Absent
Both the parties were absent.
The complainant in his complaint submitted that all requirements for submitting a valid RTI application have been set out in Section 6 of the RTI Act, and there is no requirement for an RTI applicant to submit any proof of citizenship along with his/her RTI application. Further, as per Section 6(2) of the RTI Act, there is no requirement for the complainant to share any personal details except that which may be necessary for contacting him. That there is no requirement under the RTI Act or otherwise for the applicant to submit any proof of his citizenship with his/her RTI application. This demand to submit proof of citizenship was issued by the respondent SCI in contravention of the RTI Act. The CPIO of the Shipping Corporation of India(SCI) had refused to provide the complainant with the information sought by the complainant on ground that he had not attached any document in regard to the proof of citizenship. That the CPIO of the Shipping Corporation of India had malafidely denied his request for provisioning of the sought for information to the complainant thereby seeking to defeat the very purpose of the RTI Act. The complainant prayed to the Commission for the following:
a) To direct the CPIO of the Shipping Corporation of India to provide the information requested by the complainant in his RTI application dated
28.07.2016.
b) To impose penalty upon the CPIO of the Shipping Corporation of India under section 20 of the RTI Act and to award the complainant such compensation as the Commission may deem fit and appropriate 2 for the harassment and inconvenience caused to the complainant because of such unlawful refusal to provide the information sought.
c) To issue any other order which this Commission may deem fit and proper.
The CPIO sent a written submission dated 17th April 2018, stated that he had to attend to a social obligation for which he was unable to attend the Commission's hearing on 27.04.2018 and that he was on pre sanctioned leave.
In addition he relied on an earlier decision of the Commission in case no. CIC/OK/C/2008/00016 dated 26th May 2008 and submitted that regarding citizenship proof norms were laid down that "in rarest of cases we can insist for identity proof". However, as right to information is a right available only to citizens, hence he requested for the identification documents as without that it will not be possible for them to establish whether a citizen is the recipient of the information or not.
He further submitted that they did not dispose of the application and if the applicant felt aggrieved by their decision of asking for the proof of citizenship from him, he could have appealed to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) against their decision but no further correspondence was received from the applicant. Now after considerable lapse of time the applicant had appealed to the Central Information Commission against such decision of the SCI. The applicant did not follow due procedure and timelines prescribed u/s 19 of the RTI Act. He further requested the CIC to direct the applicant to do the needful in order to apply before CIC or alternatively the CIC can remand back his complaint to the Shipping Corporation of India to be treated as first appeal. Moreover, as they did not receive the copy of the complaint submitted to the CIC, they could not submit any reply to the Commission for repudiation of the points raised in the complaint memo. He requested the Commission to consider the procedural and legal violations committed by the complainant and dispose of the matter.
3The operative part of the order dated 26th May 2008 in case no. CIC/OK/C/2008/00016 quoted in the above stated reply of the CPIO, SCI reads as follows:
"9. During the hearing the Commission noted that the Respondent had asked the Appellant to specify that he was a bonafide Indian citizen saying that this was necessary under Section 3 of the RTI-Act.
10. The Commission considers this attitude of the Respondents as against the spirit of the RTI-Act. Actually Section 3 of the Act reads, 'Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information'. Nowhere does it say, nor imply, that a person would be required to prove his citizenship every time that he was asking for information. Thus, there are thousands of applications which are considered without a person providing a certificate to prove that he is an Indian citizen. This means that in the rarest of rare cases where there is a doubt that the applicant is indeed an Indian citizen, the Public Authority may ask him for proof. This, however, can only be an exception rather than the rule."
In view of the above decision, the Commission directs the CPIO to present before the Commission on the next date of hearing without fail, evidence to prove that the present case is a rarest of rare cases in which there is doubt about the citizenship status of the applicant i.e. he is not an Indian citizen.
The case is adjourned.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
Interim Order : 27.07.2018
Complainant : Absent
Respondent : Absent
Both the parties are absent.
There is no reply on record.
In view of the above, a Show Cause notice is issued to the concerned PIO, Shri Dipankar Haldar, CPIO, the Shipping Corporation of India Limited u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following :-
4(i) Why he was not present on the day of hearing despite valid and timely Notice of the CIC; and
(ii) Why no reply was provided to the complainant in all these years.
The explanation to the above stated Show Cause notice is to be submitted to the Commission by the respondent CPIO within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The present CPIO is also to submit a report to the Commission indicating the present address, mobile no., place of posting and designation of the CPIO working at the relevant post at the relevant period. The present respondent CPIO is to serve a copy of this order to the then respondent CPIO under intimation to the Commission. On receipt of the explanation to the said Show Cause notice, further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
The respondent CPIO should note that in the event of non-submission of the explanation within the time stipulated above, the Commission has the liberty to take the required decision ex-parte against the respondent CPIO/PIO.
Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 5