Central Information Commission
Suneet Kumar Mudgal vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 10 June, 2020
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(s).:- CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/163269-BJ+
CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/163271-BJ+
CIC/MOEAF/A/2019/101861-BJ
Mr. Suneet Kumar Mudgal
(Mail- [email protected])
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of External Affairs (Southern Division)
Room No. 1024, A-Wing, Jawaharlal Nehru Bhawan,
23-D, Janpath, New Delhi - 110011
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.06.2020
Date of Decision : 10.06.2020
ORDER
RTI I: File No. CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/163269-BJ Date of RTI application 19.07.2018 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal 24.08.2018 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.10.2018 FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of the official certified documents by Republic of Nauru from Indian High Commission Fiji, the certified documents of rejection of his case, specific reason for rejection along with the date of submission of his case to the President of Nauru as also the date of rejection, etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI II: File No. CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/163271-BJ Date of RTI application 19.07.2018 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal 24.08.2018 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.10.2018 FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of the official certified documents from Republic of Nauru where he worked as Electrical Engineer between 2002-2008 and the Republic had paid him 50% of his total pending wages, the date on which the Company had insisted him to wait for getting the full and final payment as he was in dire need of money, before he departed to India along with the noting, if any; the list of other Indian based employees who had not signed any such documents and received the full payment, etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI III: File No. CIC/MOEAF/A/2019/101861-BJ [ Date of RTI application 20.10.2018 CPIO's response 24.10.2018 Date of the First Appeal 30.11.2018 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 11.01.2019 FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of the official certified documents from Ministry of External Affairs, the date on which the Company had insisted him to wait to get the full payment along with the noting, if any; the list of other Indian based employees who had not signed any such documents and received the full payment, etc. The US (FSP & Cadre), vide letter dated 24.10.2018, transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, Southern Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Jawaharlal Nehru Bhawan, New Delhi, with a request to provide the information directly to the Appellant. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the concerned CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Suneet Kumar Mudgal through TC;
Respondent: Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, RTI Lawyer through TC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI applications and stated that complete and satisfactory information had not been received by him, till date. He referred to the earlier decision of the Commission in a similar subject-matter in File No. CIC/MOEAF/C/20l8/144045 dated 16.04.2020 and stated that the direction of the Commission was not complied with by the Respondent Public Authority. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that the available information had already been shared with the Appellant. With regard to compliance of the decision of the Commission dated 16.04.2020, it was submitted that the reply was furnished by the First Appellate Authority vide letter dated 24.04.2020. Due to non-operation of the postal services, the reply could not reach the Appellant. The Respondent however agreed to send a copy of the written submission along with enclosures to the Appellant on his given email address i.e. [email protected], as desired. Furthermore, it was informed that another decision of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/130685 dated 21.10.2019, was also complied with by the Respondent Public Authority vide letter/reply dated 30.10.2019 wherein the dates of correspondence between Indian Mission and Government of Nairu was provided. Receipt of the said letter/reply dated 30.10.2019 was also denied by the Appellant. The Respondent further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 05.02.2014 (WPC 845/2014) in the matter "Shail Sahni versus Sanjeev Kumar & others and decision dated 19.01.2016 (WPC 406/2016) in the matter "Shail Sahni versus Smt Valsa Sara Mathew and others" wherein it was held that practice of repeated filing of RTI applications by an individual on the same subject- matter with twisted/similar queries is also held misuse of RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent also requested the Commission to issue directions to the Appellant to avoid filing of repeated RTI on a similar subject-matter.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 04.06.2020 wherein it was submitted that the subject-matter of all the RTI applications listed for the hearing today is same. Furthermore, the petitioner is in habit of filing repeated RTI applications on the same matter again and again apart from sending emails to various authorities. Earlier also, his two petitions on the same subject-matter have been disposed of by the Commission vide orders dated 21.10.2019 (CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/130685) and 16.04.2020 (CIC/MOEAF/C/20l8/144045) respectively. A bunch of documents including also sought in his RTI application under reference to file-number CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/163269 as available with Indian Mission at Suva and Ministry of External Affairs have already been provided to the petitioner. However notings demanded by the petitioner, if any, in respect of those available in files of Government of Republic of Nauru are not in reach of Indian Mission at Suva of Ministry of External Affairs. Copies of documents provided on 30.10.2019 under CIC-directions dated 21.10.2019 in file- number CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/130685 was enclosed for kind reference.
The information sought in other two RTI applications under reference (File Numbers CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/163271 and CIC/MOEAF/A/2019/101861) is identical, and was also a subject-matter of earlier decided CIC verdict dated 16.04.2020 (File Number CIC/MOEAF/C/20l8/144045). In accordance with CIC-directions, reply dated 24.04.2020 was furnished by the First Appellate Authority to the Applicant, a copy of which was enclosed for kind reference of the Commission.
Furthermore, it was submitted that the RTI applications numbering HCISU/R/2018/8007 dated
02.08.2018 and HCISU/R/2018/80008 dated 03.08.2018 under reference were duly responded by High Commission of India at Suva (Fiji) on 06.09.2018 through RTI online portal. First Appeal application was received in the Mission on 14.09.2018 through email from SO (RTI) at the Ministry, which was responded through email to the Applicant by the Mission on 25.09.2018.
A reference was also made to the decision of the Commission in Appeal no CIC/SS/A/2011/001500 dated 14.12.2011 wherein it was observed that the RTI Act, 2005 cannot be used as Grievance Redressal Mechanism.
Also practice of repeated filing of RTI applications by an individual on the same subject-matter with twisted/similar queries is also held misuse of RTI Act, 2005, in repeated Court verdicts, some of which are cited as under:
Delhi High Court verdict dated 05.02.2014 (WPC 845/2014) in the matter "Shail Sahni versus Sanjeev Kumar and others"
Delhi High Court verdict dated 19.01.2016 (WPC 406/2016) in the matter "Shail Sahni versus Smt Valsa Sara Mathew and others"
In view of above, it was requested that all the three petitions may kindly be dismissed with warning to the petitioner to avoid such filing of repeated RTI applications and subsequent petitions at CIC.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 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 and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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 noted that similar matter had already been heard and adjudicated by it in File Nos. CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/130685 dated 21.10.2019 and CIC/MOEAF/C/20l8/144045 16.04.2020. The Commission therefore observed that re-visiting the said orders would amount to reviewing the earlier decision of the Commission which is not envisaged within the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. In this context, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of DDA vs. CIC and Anr WP (C) 12714/2009 Decided On: 21.05.2010 could be cited wherein it had been held as under:
"35. Yet another instance of the complete transgression of the statutory powers is to be found in Regulation 23. The said regulation, inter alia, provides that an appellant or a complainant or a respondent may, notwithstanding that the decision or order of the Commission is final, make an application to the Chief Information Commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of a decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request. It further seeks to empower the Chief Information Commissioner, to consider and decide such a request as he thinks fit. Neither the RTI Act nor the rules framed thereunder grant the power of review to the Central Information Commission or the Chief Information Commissioner. Once the statute does not provide for the power of review, the Chief Information Commissioner cannot, without any authority of law, assume the power of review or even of a special leave to appeal. Clearly, the said regulation is beyond the contemplation of the Act. Such a regulation is ultra vires the provisions of the Act"
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Suhas Chakma vs. Union of India and Another W.P.(C) 5086/2010( date of decision: November 18, 2011 had also held as under:
"It is well settled that unless the power of review is vested statutorily, the Court/ authority has no inherent power of review. See Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others v. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji,(1971)3SCC844.
Regulation 23 of The Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007, as amended vide notification No.CIC/Legal/2007/006 dated 20.10.2008 further exemplifies the position. Prior to this amendment, the aforesaid Regulation 23 read as follows:-
(1) A decision or an order once pronounced by the Commission shall be final. (2) An appellant or a complainant or a respondent may, however, make an application to the Chief Information Commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of a decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request.
(3) The Chief Information Commissioner, on receipt of such a request, may consider and decide the matter as he thinks fit.(emphasis supplied) After the said aforesaid amendment carried out in the year 2008, Regulation 23 of the aforesaid Regulations now read as follows:-
A decision or an order once pronounced by the Commission shall be final. It is, therefore, even more clear that by amendment, the legislature has specifically withdrawn the power of review which earlier vested in the CIC."
A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Aseem Takyar vs. CIC and Anr, W.P.(C) 6699/2013 dated 11.04.2017.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of earlier decisions of the Commission, no further intervention of the Commission is required. The Respondent is however instructed to forward a copy of the written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email ([email protected]), as agreed.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) K.L. Das (के .एल.दास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 10.06.2020