Central Information Commission
Sandipan Hore vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 16 April, 2020
के न्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील सख्ं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NPCOI/A/2018/630644-BJ
Mr. Sandipan Hore
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited
12-N-14, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan
Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai - 400094
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.04.2020
Date of Decision : 16.04.2020
Date of RTI application 12.02.2018
CPIO's response 19.03.2018
Date of the First Appeal 29.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 25.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points in respect of OCES Advertisement for 2009 regarding the date on which NPCIL offer of traineeship for OCES 2009 was received by him along with the details of medium via which the NPCIL offer of traineeship was sent as also the proof of receiving; whether he was given training at equal status to its other trainees in any of the mentioned training schools and other issued related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 19.03.2018, enclosed a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 25.05.2018, upheld the CPIO's response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Sandipan Hore through TC Respondent: Mr. S.K. Shrivastava, Adl. CE and CPIO through Whatsapp Video Call The Appellant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application/ written submissions and stated that the information sought by him was not furnished by the Respondent, till date. It was argued that the proforma service bond and the mode of communication of the details was not furnished. Furthermore, it was stated that there was a distinct disparity in the contents of the advertisement vis a vis the bond received by him.Page 1 of 3
In its reply, the Respondent while re-iterating its submissions informed that the Appellant had filed more than 800 CPGRAMS to PMO and other senior authorities which were replied from time to time. The attention of the Commission was drawn to the efforts made by the Public Authority in answering such applications repeatedly with meagre human resources which was impacting the normal conduct of work in the Public Authority. The Commission was informed that the Appellant was employed by them for a brief period but he terminated his contract prematurely and hence several RTI applications being made to harass them.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 07.04.2020 wherein it was inter alia stated that the First Appellate Authority did not issue any notice regarding hearing before passing any order which was in violation to the CIC order passed in the case of File No.CIC/SA/A/2014/000254 in Mr R K Jain vs Ministry of Law and Justice. While stating that the FAAs order was null and void and without reasons, the Appellant also raised grievance against the replies provided by the CPIO on points 01, 03, 04, 05 and 06. The Appellant therefore prayed to direct the Respondent to provide the due replies and also the due reasons for not providing the replies, till date; compensate him for not divulging the information on time. He further stated that the issue pertaining to inclusion of NPCIL Provident Fund Scheme 1990 under Provident Fund Act 1925, was under active review at the Department of expenditure and they were in the process of conducting inter ministerial consultation with the department of Atomic energy and also Ministry of law and justice and cabinet secretariat, and had asked for the requisite records vide their reference letters dated 26.12.2019, but till date they had not shared the records with nether the department of expenditure nor with him, so inter- ministerial consultation seemingly had not proceeded thus intentionally they were obstructing the inter- ministerial consultation efforts taken up by department of expenditure. The Appellant thus requested to consider his written submission and continue the hearing in his absence. He however requested for participation over audio conferencing at my mobile number.
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."Page 2 of 3
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."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directed the CPIO to furnish an updated response to the Appellant on the issues raised by him 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.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (बिमल जुल्का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] ददनांक / Date: 16.04.2020 Page 3 of 3