Central Information Commission
Bhasco De Saikia vs Lok Sabha Secretariat on 2 December, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/LOKSS/A/2019/636603
Bhasco De Saikia ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Parliament of India, New ... ितवादी/Respondent
Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07.12.2018 FA : 29-01-2019 SA : 27-03-2019
CPIO : 12-03-2019 FAO : 12.03.2019 Hearing: 23-11-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Parliament of India, New Delhi seeking following information:-
"(a)List of the person(s) engaged by following MPs for obtaining secretarial assistance along with address and salary/allowances and other benefits drawn by each of them:
1. Biren Singh Engti
2. Siraj Uddin Ajmal
3. Badruddin Ajmal
4. Rameswar Teli
5. Bijoya Chakravarty
6. Kamakhya Parasad Tasa
7. Gourav Gogoi
8. Radheshyam Biswas
9. Naba Kumar Sarania (Hira)
10. Pradan Baruah
11. Ramen Deka
12. Rajen Gohain Page 1 of 4
13. Sushmita Dev
14. Ram Prasad Sarmah
(b) Year wise and transportation wise (i.e. Air, Rail, Road) travel allowances claimed by the above mentioned MPs along with released amount from 2014-15 to till date."
2. The CPIO responded on 12-03-2019. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 29-01-2019 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 12.03.2019. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Bhasco De Saikia attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. K S Sona, Deputy Secretary participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant stated that the respondent should be directed to provide him a list of the person(s) engaged by the aforesaid MPs for obtaining secretarial assistance along with their address, details of salary/allowances and other benefits drawn by each of them. He further sought the year-wise and transportation-wise (i.e. Air, Rail, Road) details of the travel allowances claimed by these MPs along with the amount sanctioned from 2014-15 onwards.
5. The respondent submitted that the secretarial assistance to MPs is regulated by the Members of Parliament (Office Expense Allowance) Rules, 1988 and the personal staff/PAs of MPs are engaged by each of these MPs in their personal capacity and therefore, it cannot be construed as appointment by the Lok Sabha Secretariat. He further submitted that respective MPs are at liberty to select their personal staff and discontinue their services as per requirement which is purely a matter of personal information between the MP and the concerned staff. Further, he submitted that the Lok Sabha Secretariat has no role to play in their appointment. Therefore, they have claimed exemption u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, collating information about travel allowances of each of these MPs in the manner sought by the appellant would require going through each different file separately from 2014-15 onwards thereby entailing compilation from voluminous records by a significant number of officials and would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority from the efficient Page 2 of 4 discharge of its normal functions. As such, it attracts the provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
6. This Commission takes note of the fact that the personal staff/PAs of MPs are engaged by each of these MPs in their personal capacity and they have a discretion to select their personal staff and discontinue their services which is a matter between the respective MP and the concerned staff. Accordingly, the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 is being upheld. This Commission further observes that the appellant has sought very wide information regarding year-wise and transportation-wise (i.e. Air, Rail, Road) details of the travel allowances claimed by each of these MPs along with the amount sanctioned from 2014-15 onwards. To this, the respondent has contended that it would not be feasible for them to furnish this information after extensive compilation, as it is readily not available in a compiled form in the manner asked by the appellant. In this regard, the Commission observes that the CPIO cannot be expected to compile the information which requires disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority. This Commission takes note of the provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:-
"(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question."
7. On this aspect, it is apt to mention the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 dated 09/08/2011 titled as Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., wherein, it was observed as under:-
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) 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. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest Page 3 of 4 officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
8. In light of the factual matrix of the case and the legal principles enunciated in the aforesaid case-laws, this Commission comes to the conclusion that the CPIO is not obliged to compile any fresh data which entails disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority. Therefore, the CPIO is not expected to collate the details of travel allowances from 2014-15 onwards in respect of each Member of Parliament. However, the CPIO has not sent a reply to the appellant along this line as contended by him during the hearing on point no. '(b)' and therefore, he is directed to send a revised reply to the appellant on point no. '(b)', within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date:23-11-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Parliament of India
Lok Sabha Secretariat
RTI Cell, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi-110001
2. Shri Bhasco De Saikia Page 4 of 4