Central Information Commission
Rajeev Bhardwaj vs Ministry Of New And Renewable Energy on 15 March, 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/MNRES/A/2022/661995
Rajeev Bhardwaj अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of New and Renewable
Energy, SECI Cell, RTI Cell,
Block-14, CGO Complex, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi-110003. ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/03/2023
Date of Decision : 14/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27/09/2022
CPIO replied on : 27/10/2022
First appeal filed on : 14/11/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 18/11/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21/11/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.09.2022 seeking the information:1
"Subject Matter: Non-Payment of Salary arrear of PRP to Applicant as Ex-Director (HR), SECI reference: Representation vide email dated 04.08.2022 and 24.08.2022, copy attached :
Information Requested for disclosure:
Disclose the complete action taken details, alongwith copy of Note Sheets, Correspondences, any other facts / documents existing related with the above stated subject matter and references."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 27.10.2022 stating as under:
"The matter is under process. The complete action taken details, along with copy of Note Sheets, Correspondences will be forwarded in due course."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.11.2022. FAA's order, dated 18.11.2022, held as under:
"The matter pertains to non-payment of Salary arrears since the year 2020. The various disclosures made at various stages on the subject matter has helped the Applicant in bringing out inconsistencies and improper facts and ground applied for withholding the Payments.
The action taken details pertains to Applicant representation dated 04.08.2022 followed with escalation before Secretary MNRE. The representation is brig overdue now.
It is the case of the CPIO that the matter is under process. It may be appreciated that it is more than three and half months since the representation dated 04.08.2022 was made bringing out facts of error in the earlier letter of the MNRE.
Therefore, the information as it exists as on date of disclosure was required to be disclosed by the CPIO. The RTI Act does not postulates about any ad-interim reply and/or deferment of timeline prescribed therein. The CPIO may be directed to disclose the requested information as it exists."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
2The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Divyashu Jha, U.S. & CPIO present in person.
The CPIO while reiterating the contents of his averred reply invited attention of the bench towards his written submission filed prior to hearing wherein he including inter alia stated as under -
"...Sh. Bhardwaj has filed as many as 37- RTI applications, besides multiple representations through DOPT and appeals on the same matter of APAR and related PRP, with tenuous or non-existent links to public interest. The Ministry has dealt with his representation at length and disposed of the matter finally in the letter dated 18th July, 2022 and yet, Sh. Bharadwaj has persisted to file multiple RTI requests and appeals without new or substantive grounds. Sh. Bharadwaj is free to approach higher authorities for redress for grievances, including the legal system, but he has essentially used RTI as a measure of harassment for the division, 37 RTI applications on a single subject is excessive, and the subject matter of redressal of grievances of employees cannot be taken up under RTI.
5. Further, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors.
(MANU/SC/0932/2011) may be referred, wherein their lordships held:-
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a 3 public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', the cost of their normal and regular duties."
xxx....."
In conclusion, the CPIO apprised the Commission that even otherwise the issue pertaining to Non-Payment of Salary arrears of PRP of Appellant as Ex-Director (HR), SECI has already been resolved.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of the CPIO observes that the relief claimed in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se and in fact, it is about the Appellant's resolve of bringing to fore his grievance against Non-Payment of Salary arrears of PRP of Appellant as Ex-Director (HR), SECI for which he sought further clarifications from the CPIO.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO is as per the provisions of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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;.."
In this regard, his attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] where in it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and 4 existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court 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....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...."
(Emphasis Supplied) 5 And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Moreover, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) 6 Having observed as above and more particularly the inability of the Appellant to substantiate his level of dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply, no scope of further relief lies in the matter.
However, in pursuance of clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a complete copy of his latest written submission, free of cost with the Appellant within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
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 / 7