Central Information Commission
Mrpremlal Pathak vs Food Corporation Of India on 1 May, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901538
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901821
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/902096
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/902097
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/902098
Date of Hearing : 03.02.2015
Date of Interim Decision : 03.03.2015
Date of Final Decision : 01.05.2015
Appellant : Shri Premlal Pathak
rep. by Shri Manish Aggrawal
Jabalpur
Respondent : Shri Parminer Singh
FCI, Bhopal Shri T.R. Raikwar FCI, Gwalior Shri Rajesh Verma, CPIO Smt. Swati Ukhale, Advocate FCI, Ujjain Shri Raman Pradesh FCI, Jabalpur Food Corporation of India Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present. The appellant vide similar RTI applications has raised multiple queries from regional offices of FCI, Madhya Pradesh, namely, Jabalpur, Bhopal, Gwalior and Ujjain. Details of all these are reproduced below in a tabulated form:
Appeal No. RTI Date PIO's reply First appeal FAA's order
901538 06.05.2014 29.05.2014 06.06.2014 No order
901821 28.04.2014 No reply 06.06.2014 No order
902096 28.04.2014 27.05.2014 12.06.2014 No order
902097 01.05.2014 No reply 12.06.2014 No order
902098 28.04.2014 26.05.2014 12.06.2014 No order
F.No.CIC/YA/C/2014/901538
Page 1 of 5
The appellant sought information on 13 points regarding copies of all NIT of all OMSS sale tender for 2013-14, financial bids including undertaking/power of attorney submitted along with each bid, documents submitted by each participant on the basis of which their empanelment carried out in 2013-14, copies of tender acceptance letters, guidelines for allowing lifting of wheat issued by FCI/Ministry, etc. Shri Parminder Singh, ACPIO, FCI, Bhopal denied providing information to the complainant stating that the original records for the year 2012-13 OMSS have been seized by CBI and that the same are not available in office. Further, he denied information stating that the same is commercial in nature and is exempted u/s 8(1)(j). The FAA did not dispose of the first appeal.
The appellant stated that only a few tender acceptance letters have been provided and not all. Shri Parminder Singh stated that the exemption earlier claimed as 8(1)(j) be corrected and stated that the information cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(d) as the same is commercial in nature. Further, he re-iterated that the files have been seized by the CBI and thus, information cannot be provided to the complainant. The respondent stated that details of tenders (including financial bid) are available on the official website of respondent authority.
F.No.CIC/YA/C/2014/901821 The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 28.04.2014, seeking information on tender acceptance letters of each OMSS movement tender during 2013-14, details of payment by buyers for stock sold rake-wise, copy of release orders, railway receipts for each rake loaded railhead -wise, details of indent placed with Railways/indents cancelled and amount forfeited for Feb-March, 2014, bills raised by contractor or MPSCSC for loading each rake of OMSS stock, etc. On not receiving any reply from the PIO, FCI, Jabalpur within prescribed time, appellant filed first appeal. The FAA did not dispose of the appeal.
The appellant stated that only part information was provided. The respondent stated that information was provided to the appellant and the FAA had also disposed of the first appeal.
F.No.CIC/YA/C/2014/902096 The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 28.04.2014, seeking information on tender acceptance letters along with corrigenda issued during 2013-14, details of payment rake-wise, release orders, railway receipts, copies of bills raised by contractor or MPSCSC for loading each rake, etc. PIO, FCI, Bhopal provided point-wise reply to the appellant. The FAA did not dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant.
The appellant stated that only part information was provided to him. PIO, FCI, Bhopal stated that the information as available was provided to the appellant. Further, information in part could not be provided as the relevant files were seized by CBI and an enquiry regarding the same is still pending.
F.No.CIC/YA/C/2014/902097 The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 01.05.2014 seeking information on tender acceptance letters along with corrigenda issued during 2013-14, details of payment rake-wise, release orders, railway receipts, copies of bills raised by contractor or MPSCSC for loading each rake, etc. On not receiving any reply from PIO, FCI, Ujjain within prescribed time, appellant filed first appeal. The FAA did not dispose of the appeal.Page 2 of 5
The appellant stated that no information has been provided to him by CPIO/FAA. PIO, FCI, Ujjain stated that no information can be provided to the appellant as the same in exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j). He stated that the information was being collected in order to provide the same but in the meantime another letter was received from the appellant by the name Parmanand Pathak. The said letter was sent for verification and that is why information was not given and FAA was rejected.
F.No.CIC/YA/C/2014/902098 The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 28.04.2014 seeking information on tender acceptance letters along with corrigenda issued during 2013-14, details of payment rake-wise, release orders, railway receipts, copies of bills raised by contractor or MPSCSC for loading each rake, etc. On not receiving any reply from PIO, FCI, Gwalior provided point wise reply to the appellant. The FAA did not dispose of first appeal filed by the appellant.
The appellant stated that part information is given. On query by the Commission as to whether the tender acceptance letters are available on the website of the public authority, PIO, FCI Gwalior stated that details of tender are available on the website, but whether the tender acceptance letters, he cannot comment. On query by the Commission as to his take on the respondents' plea from Ujjain and Bhopal that information cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(j), PIO, FCI Gwalior stated that he cannot comment on that but that information as was available in his dept. was provided to the appellant.
Interim Decision: 03.03.2015 After hearing the parties and on perusal of record, the Commission, in F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901538, the Commission directs PIO, FCI, Bhopal to furnish written submission within two weeks of receipt of this order, categorically stating whether information sought cannot be provided to the appellant, as the files have been seized by CBI or photocopies of the same can be provided but the same are being denied u/s 8(1)(d), after which the Commission shall pass a final order. A copy of written submission shall also be endorsed to the appellant.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901821, the Commission directs PIO, FCI, Jabalpur to furnish written submission within two weeks of receipt of this order, categorically stating the points on which information has been provided to the appellant, the points on which information cannot be provided and reasons thereof, along with the PIO's reply and FAA's order in the instant case, after which the Commission shall pass a final order. A copy of written submission shall also be endorsed to the appellant.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/902096, the Commission directs PIO, FCI, Bhopal to furnish written submission within two weeks of receipt of this order, categorically stating whether information sought cannot be provided to the appellant, as the files have been seized by CBI or photocopies of the same can be provided but the same are being denied u/s 8(1)(d) or 8(1)(h), after which the Commission shall pass a final order. A copy of written submission shall also be endorsed to the appellant.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/902097, the Commission directs PIO, FCI, Ujjain to furnish written submission within two weeks of receipt of this order, categorically stating whether information sought cannot be provided to the appellant, as the files have been seized by CBI or photocopies of the same can be provided but the same are being denied u/s 8(1)(d) or 8(1)(h), after which Page 3 of 5 the Commission shall pass a final order. A copy of written submission shall also be endorsed to the appellant.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/902098, the Commission directs PIO, FCI, Gwalior to furnish written submission within two weeks of receipt of this order, categorically stating whether information provided to the appellant was as per available record and whether the same was provided to him from the copies of files seized by CBI or the original record, after which the Commission shall pass a final order. A copy of written submission shall also be endorsed to the appellant.
The order is reserved.
Final Decision: 01.05.2015 In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901538 and F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/902096, no written submissions have been filed by the CPIO, FCI, Bhopal till date. The FAA, too, has not dealt with the first appeals, but has chosen to put the burden of adjudicating these two cases, on the Commission. The FAA, being senior in Rank to the CPIO, would be well versed with the information sought by the appellant and whether the same can be provided or not. If the FAA, had adjudicated on the facts of the case, after taking cognizance of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the issue could have been resolved at the FAA level. The FAA, being a quasi judicial body, should have, first, provided an opportunity of being heard to both the appellant and PIO and, then, gone into aspects like whether information can be provided, reply given by the PIO, whether he has duly applied the provisions of the Act, etc. In the instant case, therefore, the FAA has failed to exercise his quasi-judicial power.
The Commission, therefore, finds it fit to remand back these appeals to the FAA, FCI, Bhopal and directs him to provide an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and then, pass a speaking order after considering the facts raised by the appellant in his appeals, within three weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The Commission, also cautions the FAA to strictly follow the RTI regime while disposing of an appeal and pass a speaking order, after taking due cognizance of merits of the case.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/901821, written submissions have been filed by PIO, FCI, Jabalpur vide letters dt. 10.02.2015 & 30.03.2015. The same have been perused. The Commission finds that information has been provided to the appellant and no further action is required in the instant case.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/902097, written submissions have been filed by Shri Rajesh Verma, CPIO, FCI, Ujjain vide letter dt. 30.03.2015. It is stated therein that since the investigation by CBI is pending, the disclosure of information would impede the investigation, on the basis of which the information is being denied u/s 8(1)(j). The written submission is not only signed by the CPIO, but also by Smt. Swati Ukhle, the counsel for FCI, Ujjain.
The Commission finds that the respondent authority, in this case, has shown utmost ignorance towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, including the counsel representing them. The Commission finds it fit to remind the officials of the respondent authority and its counsel, the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Section 8(1)(h) reads as - information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; and Section 8(1)(j) reads as - information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the Page 4 of 5 State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
The information sought by the appellant, in the instant case, is voluminous and the same may not be readily available in the respondent authority. Each question asked by the appellant has a sub-set and the information has been sought in a particular format, like 'for each rake loaded railhead wise', etc. Therefore, the Commission directs the appellant to focus and pin-point his queries, within one week of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission, failing which no information shall be provided by the CPIO. On receipt of the appellant's focused queries, CPIO, FCI, Ujjain is directed to provide information to the appellant, as available on record, while strictly adhering to the provisions of the RTI Act. CPIO is free to invoke Section 10 of the Act.
Further, Chairman/MD, FCI is directed to take note of the manner in which the PIO/FAA and their legal counsel have dealt with the instant case. The provisions of the RTI Act have clearly been violated. The DS/DR of this Bench is directed to mark a copy of this order to Chairman/MD, FCI for necessary action, within one week of receipt of this order.
In F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/902098, written submissions have been filed by Shri Samar Verma, CPIO, FCI, Gwalior vide letter dt. 24.03.2015. It is stated therein that all the information was provided to the appellant, in reply to his RTI application dt. 28.04.2014, from the original record. The Commission finds that information has been provided to the appellant and no further action is required in the instant case.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar Page 5 of 5