Central Information Commission
Chandan Kumar vs National Handloom Development ... on 2 September, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/NHDCL/C/2023/629928
Shri Chandan Kumar निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO National Handloom Development Corporation ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Limited, Noida
Date of Hearing : 21.08.2024
Date of Decision : 29.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 11.04.2023
PIO replied on : 09.06.2023
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint admitted on : 20.06.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.04.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"1. If Rs.3.74 has been already recovered by NHDC till 07.02.2019 then why NHDC is claiming Indian Overseas Bank a sum of Rs.6.61 crore.
2. As per Honorable THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR TEXTILES (SHRI AJAY TAMTA) statement, efforts are being made to recover balance amount. Kindly explain the present status of recovery.
3. What is the reason to conceal the fact about recovery by NHDC official?
Because of this frivolous claim if someone loose job then who will be responsible?"
The CPIO vide letter dated 09.06.2023 replied as under:-
"सेक्शन 8(1)(घ) के अंतर्गत सूचना उपलब्ध नह ं कराई जा सकती।"
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 1 of 3Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Heard through Audio Conference Respondent: 1. Shri Amit Kumar, Manager (F&A)
2. Shri Dinesh Prakash, Consultant (HR) The Appellant stated that the desired information was not provided to him, till date. He referred to his Second Appeal and argued that the information sought is not related to commercial confidence but is a matter of larger public interest as amount was debited twice from the public exchequer and no action was taken by the public authority for its recovery.
Shri Amit Kumar stated that the public authority was continuously following up with Indian Overseas Bank since the last 2-3 years for recovery of the amount debited twice and transaction Audit was also underway. However, the final outcome in the matter has not yet been arrived at.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, it is evident that the issues raised in the RTI application involve larger public interest as it relates to wrongful double payment of Rs. 6.61 Crores from the public exchequer. The CPIO has denied the information without application of mind and has not provided any cogent reasons for denial. The fact that is a matter of larger public interest is further fortified due to the reason that the recovery of the total amount is yet to be made despite completion of almost 6 years from the date of transaction.
The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed.
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the Page 2 of 3 people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
The CPIO while replying to the RTI applications is duty bound to apply his mind and all information that is not exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 it has held that:
"The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
In view of the above observations, the Commission directs Shri Amit Kumar, Manager (F&A) to re-examine the RTI application and provide point wise information as per available records to the Appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)