Central Information Commission
Saurav Das vs Deptt Of Information Technology on 10 March, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.: - CIC/DEOIT/A/2021/603809
In the matter of:
Saurav Das
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology,
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 27/08/2020 CPIO replied on : 23/09/2020 First appeal filed on : 11/10/2020 First Appellate Authority order : 26/10/2020 Second Appeal Filed on : 07/02/2021 Date of Hearing : 08/03/2021 Date of Decision : 09/03/2021
Note: Early hearing of the case has been taken up, since the case has a linkage to File No. CIC/DEOIT/A/2020/688691 and the High Court of Judicature at Madras, in WP No.19430 of 2020 and WMP No.24015 of 2020 has issued an Order dated 08/02/2021 directing early hearing of File No.688691.
The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Ms Jacqueline Lall, Deputy Director & CPIO and Shri Gaurav Gupta, DPIO, both present over intra VC Information Sought:
The appellant has stated that Mr. Arghya Sengupta, of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, was appointed as a member of the Justice Sri Krishna Committee 1 to draft the Data Protection Bill. In the said context, he has sought the following information:
1. Provide the copy of entire file relating to the appointment of Mr. Sengupta to the said committee.
2. Provide the details of the Minister/Officer/third party/any person, who recommended for the appointment of Mr. Sengupta to the said Committee.
3. Provide the date when consent of Mr. Sengupta was obtained for his appointment to the Committee. Provide a copy of the communication sent to him and consent obtained.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO whereby he was given an opportunity of inspection as it was not feasible for him to travel from Pondicherry to New Delhi. He further submitted that the information sought by him is neither voluminous nor is related to some internal working of the Committee and therefore, the CPIO may be directed to provide the desired information to him.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submissions dated 06.03.2021. On a query by the Commission on how voluminous was the information on point no. 1, it was informed that it would be approx. 150-200 pages . To this , the appellant informed that he is ready to pay the photocopying charges to obtain the information .
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant was offered inspection by the CPIO which was not availed of by the appellant. The reasons given by the appellant was that it was not practically possible for him to commute from Pondicherry to New Delhi for inspection and this seems to be justified, considering the distance he would have had to travel to inspect the records. The CPIO while offering inspection to any applicant should bear in mind all such extraneous factors and expenses involved before giving any such offer. However, in the recent written submissions filed by the appellant, a 2 point-wise reply has been given except for point no. 1 where it has been stated that the concerned file is voluminous.
On a query to the CPIO as to whether a copy of the recent written submissions were given to the appellant, she submitted that it has been given today by mail half an hour before the scheduled time of hearing. The appellant also admitted that he had received the submissions but he raised strong objections to the fact that it was not given in advance to enable him to respond to any points that may have come up in lthese submissions.. The Commission is in agreement with the objection raised by the appellant and the CPIO should henceforth suo-motu send a copy of any subsequent submissions to the appellant so that he gets ample time to prepare his arguments to rebut the contentions of the CPIO. The CPIO is therefore advised to be careful in future and to ensure that a copy of any written communication which is relevant to the case should be given to the appellant as well and with sufficient time for him to examine the same and respond.
After a quick perusal of the written submissions of the CPIO, the appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO on point no. 1 and on points no. 2-5, 8, 10 & 11 where the CPIO had stated that no such information is available. He stated that this reply is misleading as it cannot be expected that a Ministry who constituted the above named Committee and is still assisting the Committee does not hold any information regarding the said Committee. There must be some kind of communication available with them. He further stated that non-availability of information is not a valid excuse to deny the information. He relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P(C) No. 900/2021 in the matter of Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, CPIO UBI & Ors Vs CIC & Anr. The relevant para relied upon by the appellant is extracted below:
"On the basis of the above judgments, the following principles can be clearly gleaned:
iii) Government departments ought not to be permitted to evade disclosure of information. Diligence has to be exercised by the said departments, by conducting a thorough search and enquiry, before concluding that the information is not available or traceable;
iv) Every effort should be made to locate information, and the fear of disciplinary action would work as a deterrent against suppression of information for vested interests;"3
The Commission finds the judgment and the submissions of the appellant to be relevant as far as the denial of information due to non- availability is concerned on points 2-5, 8, 10 &11. During the hearing, it was again enquired from the CPIO whether they have any information with them on points no. 2- 5, 8, 10 & 11, but they maintained the same stand. Under these circumstances, the CPIO shall affirm on affidavit that no such information is available with them for these points.
With regard to point no.1, the CPIO in her recent submissions had stated that the file is a voluminous file. It was also enquired from the deemed PIO who is the custodian of the desired information as to how many pages are available in the concerned file, he submitted that there are 150-200 pages in the concerned file. At this point, the appellant submitted that he is willing to bear the photocopying charges for providing him the desired information. The CPIO is therefore directed to provide the said information on point no. 1 to the appellant on payment of photocopying charges. The CPIO should note that only such information related to Mr. Sengupta is to be provided as the appellant had sought his information only and in case the file contains any information about other third parties, the same should be severed u/s 10 of the RTI Act.
With regard to points no. 6, 7 & 9, a suitable reply was given.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide the relevant information on point no. 1 of the RTI application to the appellant after obtaining the requisite photocopying charges from the appellant. With regard to points no. 2-5, 8, 10 & 11, the CPIO is directed to submit a duly notarised affidavit to the Commission that no such documents are available on record with them with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant. This direction is to be complied with within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 5