Central Information Commission
Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury vs Damodar Valley Corporation on 7 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DVCOR/A/2022/663488
Chayan Ghosh Chawdhury ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Damodar Valley Corporation,
RTI Cell, DVC Towers, VIP Road,
Kolkata-700054, W.B. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/07/2023
Date of Decision : 06/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29/06/2022
CPIO replied on : 28/07/2022
First appeal filed on : 07/08/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 12/09/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26/11/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.06.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Please supply the certified copy of the Board Resolution No. 9157 in Agenda Number 4 taken in DVC's 657th board meeting dated 20105/2022.1
2. Please supply the certified copy of the relevant Board Agenda Note along with supporting documents consequent to which the above Board Resolution No 9157 was passed in its meeting dated 20/05/2022.
3. Please supply information on total amount of Budget allocated in BE 2022 -- 2023 for whole commemoration of 75th Foundation Day of DVC head wise.
4. Please provide certified copy of list of the Members of the Board who had participated in the said meeting dated 20/052022.
5. Please supply information about the total numbers of Group A. B. C & D regular employees of DVC, as on date of providing information, who will be benefited by the implementation of the Board Resolution No. 9157 taken in the Board Meeting dated 20/052022.
6. Please inform the Budget-Head in BE 2022 -- 2023 from where the amount of Rs. 36 Crores has been re-appropriated and details of financial rule for such authorisation.
7. Please supply the certified copy of the approval note of the Chairman, DVC for re- appropriation of fund worth Rs. 36 Crores for purchasing Gold Coins for distribution among DVC employees to mark the 756 Foundation Day of DVC.
8. Please share process adopted/to be adopted for procurement of Gold Coins worth Rs 36 Croce.
9. Please inform the profit earned/loss by DVC in the Financial Year 2019-20,2020- 21,2021-22 and in the first quarter (April to June, 2022) of the Financial Year 2022
-- 2023.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 28.07.2022 stating as under:
Pt. no. 1, 2, 4- Cannot be disclosed in terms of regulation 10 of Damodar Valley Corporation Regulation, 1951.
Pt. no. 9- The annual report for the financial year 2019-20 & 2020-21 are available in DVC Website. The annual report for the financial year 2021-22 shall also available in DVC Website.
Reply for pt. no. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 are as under:-2
Reply 3: Budget under 'General Office Expenditure'.
Reply 5: 5929 nos.
Reply 6: Budget reallocated under 'General Office Expenditure' of Secretariat Deptt. Reply 7: Exempted under sec 8.1(d) of RTI Act, 2005.
Reply 8: Procurement is done in PVC as per Works & Procurement Manual of DVC.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.08.2022. FAA's order dated 12.09.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
"....It is well settled that information can only be refused if the same is exempted under the provisions of the Act. Barring information requested at para 7 of the Application, no exemption has been claimed. The entire information stands refused on flimsy pretexts. The refusal of information is therefore malafide and ill intentioned.
8. Information requested at para 7 of the Application has been refused under the garb of Sec.8(1)(d) of the Act. No justification has been advanced as to how the disclosure of Note of the Chairman for re appropriation of funds worth Rs. 36 crores shall cause prejudice to the commercial interest of any party. On the contrary, the same amounts to mandatory disclosures under Sec.4(1)(b) of the Act and merits suo motu disclosure in larger public interest.
9. Information requested at para 1, 2 & 4 has been refused under the garb of Regulation 10 of DVC regulations. The FAA was requested to consider the contention of the CPIO in the light of Sec.22 of the RTI Act. The FA has passed a mechanical order, ignoring the mandate of RTI Act, which is unjustified.
10. The information requested at other paras of the Application also stands refused and are highly unsatisfactory. The CPIO has advanced his subjective opinion. Under the RTI regime, the CPIO is under an obligation to provide material information, as it exists. The CPIO reply is evasive, misleading and inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.
11. The RTI request is based on a NOTE SHEET dated 15/06/2022, available in public domain. The contents of the Note Sheet dated 15/06/2022 are not disputed by the CPIO/FAA. Thus the complete information merits disclosure in the 3 interest of transparency & accountability in matters of public concern. A copy of the Note Sheet dated 15/06/2022, marked as Annexure E is enclosed for ready reference, perusal & understanding of the Hon'ble Commission.
12. The refusal of entire information by the CPIO/FAA amounts to obstruction of free flow of information and harassment of consumers of information. The requested information merits disclosure in public interest to exclude incidents of corruption and transparency in the decision making process..."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Sangita Sil, DGM & CPIO along with Kaushik Roy, Manager (HR) present through video-conference.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of instant Appeal as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. He further harped on the alleged inaction of the Respondent Public Authority in handling of RTI matters by not providing specific and categorical response against the information sought for. In this regard, the Appellant prayed the Commission to take strict action against the CPIOs'.
The CPIO invited attention of the bench towards her written submissions filed prior to hearing, wherein she inter alia , apprised the Commission as under -
"1. RTI application vide no. DVCOR/R/E/22/00100 dated 29.06.22 was submitted by Shri Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury. The RTI application is enclosed as Annexure-A.
2. The RTI application was sent by CPIO to concerned departments. The reply that has been received by CPIO is enclosed as Annexure-B.
3. Accordingly, the reply was uploaded by the CPIO on 28.07.2022. The copy is enclosed as Annexure-C.
4. The copy of the order dated 7.8.22 of First Appellate Authority is enclosed as Annexure-D.
5. In his RTI application under sl. No. 1, 2, 4 he sought Information related to Proceedings of Board Meeting of Damodar Valley Corporation. In terms of Regulation 10 of Damodar Valley Corporation (Conduct of Business) Regulations 1951, Proceedings of Corporation is 'confidential'. The copy of the same is enclosed 4 as Annexure-E. It may kindly be noted that the file was under process, hence the certified copy of note sheet as sought under sl. No. 7 of the RTI application, was not disclosed under RTI Act.
6. In this connection, CPIO, DVC does not have any authority to generate information for extending information to the applicant/appellant. The information has been extended/uploaded as expeditiously as possible based on the information furnished by the deemed CPIO which was full and final. All out effort has been made from CPIO's end in letter and true spirit to dispose of the application.
7. It is, therefore, requested to may kindly drop the appeals/petitions raised before the Hon'ble Commission by Shri Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury."
Decision:
The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the reply provided by the then CPIO at points no. 1, 2 and 4 at the first instance is rather evasive and largely fails to comply with the provisions of RTI Act. Hence, the Commission outrightly rejects the denial of the information by the CPIO on the above said points by citing Regulation 10 of Damodar Valley Corporation Regulation, 1951 as denial of information under the RTI Act is permissible only as per the exemptions clauses of Section 8 and/or 9 which is missing in the initial reply of the CPIO. Moreover, the attention of the CPIO is drawn towards Section 22 of the RTI Act which provides as under:
"22. Act to have overriding effect--The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act."
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed firstly to provide a copy of her latest written submission and also to revisit the contents of points no. 1, 2 & 4 of impugned RTI Application and provide a revised point wise separate reply along with the relevant available information as sought for on the said points.In doing so, the CPIO is at liberty to invoke Section 10 of the RTI Act for redacting the information related to the personal information of third parties, as the said provision states as under:
"...10. Severability.--5
(1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information...."
The above said direction should be complied by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission upon close scrutiny of records observes that the reply provided by the CPIO earlier and coupled with the latest reply against points no. 3, 5, 6 & 7 is as per the provisions of RTI Act, leaving behind no scope for further relief to be granted thereon.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6