Central Information Commission
Satish Ashok Sherkhane vs Spmcil Corporate Office on 13 May, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
केन्द्रीय सच
ू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2018/630677
शिकायत संख्या/Complaint No. CIC/IGMNO/C/2018/628149
Satish Ashok Sherkhane ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
...शिकायतकताग/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Security Printing And ...प्रनतिािी/Respondent
Minting Corporation Of India
Limited (SPMCIL), New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal/complaint:
SA : 06-09-2018
RTI : 09-07-2018 FA : 07-08-2018
Complaint: 07-08-2018
Complaint was adjourned
on 24-04-2020.
CPIO : 07-08-2018 FAO : 06-09-2018
Hearing for final
disposal:- 06-05-2020
ORDER
1. The applicant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), SPMCIL, New Delhi seeking following information regarding alleged violation of the Rules 26(7) & 26 (20) of the SPMCIL CDA Rules, 2010:-
1. "Copy of lawful orders of superiors.
2. Copy of reasonable orders of superiors.
3. Copy of confidential information with regard to working of company which comes into my possession during the course of work.
4. Copy of restricted information with regard to working of company which comes into my possession during the course of work.Page 1 of 9
5. Copy of confidential information with regard to the process used in the company which comes into my possession during the course of work.
6. Copy of restricted information with regard to the process used in the company which comes into my possession during the course of work."
2. The CPIO responded on 07-08-2018. The applicant filed the first appeal dated 07-08-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 06-09- 2018. The applicant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. The applicant also filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The applicant, Mr. Satish Ashok Sherkhane attended the hearing through video conferencing and he further requested for clubbing the aforesaid 2 nd appeal as well as the complaint. Hence, these cases are being clubbed together and disposed of by this common order. Mr. V Balaji, AGM(HR) participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The applicant alleged that the respondent has hatched a criminal conspiracy punishable u/Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by not providing him copies of the 'lawful and reasonable orders' on the basis of which he was chargesheeted. Since he was chargesheeted for violation of the Rules 26(7) & 26 (20) of the SPMCIL CDA Rules, 2010 based on certain lawful/reasonable orders of superiors and therefore, the CPIO should be directed to provide him copies of these lawful/reasonable orders.
5. The respondent submitted that the CPIO is not obliged to interpret the documents/records in order to analyse as to what constitutes the lawful and reasonable order(s). Furthermore, the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work on behalf of the applicant to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. The CPIO is also not bound to infer any meaning from the memo of charges as per the RTI Act, 2005.Page 2 of 9
Decision:
6. This Commission observes that the applicant has raised certain queries from the CPIO expecting him to analyse and interpret the 'lawful and reasonable order(s)' out of certain documents based on which he was chargesheeted. But the CPIO cannot be expected to analyse and interpret whole sorts of documents of the departmental proceedings for creating the information in the manner sought by the applicant. The CPIO is also not obliged to imply any meaning from the memo of charges. This legal principle is supported by the decision dated 07-01-2016 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in LPA 24/2015 & CM No. 965/2015 titled as The Registrar of Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K Batra & Ors., wherein, it was held as under:-
"15. On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, "right to information"
under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which it is sought by the applicant."
7. The CPIO is also not required to provide clarification and interpretation of the documents to the applicant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. This sort of queries seeking clarification from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of 'information' u/s Section 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 ........"Page 3 of 9
In this context, a reference is also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497, 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."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:-
"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."
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."
Page 4 of 98. Primarily, the grievance of the applicant is vis-à-vis his departmental proceedings against violation of the Rules 26(7) & 26 (20) of the SPMCIL CDA Rules, 2010. Furthermore, the applicant has alleged 'criminal conspiracy' against the CPIO punishable u/Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for which the CIC is not an appropriate forum to adjudicate upon. In this regard, this Commission observes that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna v. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal v. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 has held that the RTI Act, 2005 is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
9. Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in Review Petition [C] No.2309 OF 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No.210 of 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Namit Sharma, Review Petition [C] No. 2675 of 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No. 210 of 2012 has held as under:-
"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. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors., LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:-
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot Page 5 of 9 be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat v. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 has held as under:-
"7. This Court is of the view that the CIC completely misdirected itself in proceedings to distinguish between a citizen, and a citizen who is a director of a company. A citizen is not required to give any reasons for the information sought from a public authority unless such information is otherwise exempt from disclosure and is available only if the information seeker satisfies the PIO/competent authority that such disclosure is in a larger public interest. No such consideration is involved in the information sought by the petitioner; thus, the CIC was required to only examine whether the denial of the information sought was justified as being exempt from disclosure under the Act.
8. The learned counsel for respondent no.3 has also pointed out that the CIC has further directed the EPFO "to report the Commission what action was initiated against the management for legal remedies including demand for damages for obstructing the proceedings of public authority and the result of Section 7C proceedings before 9th June, 2017." This is also wholly without jurisdiction."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Govt. of NCT v. Rajendra Prasad, WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017 has held as under:-
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the W.P.(C) 10676/2016 Page 4 of 5 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. 7 . In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.Page 6 of 9
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Shobha Vijender v. Chief Information Commissioner, W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2016 has held as under:-
"8. It is seen from the above that the scope of proceedings was somewhat expanded. As stated hereinabove, the scope of the proceedings before the CIC was limited to making a recommendation under Section 20(2) of the Act; however, notwithstanding the same, the CIC issued further directions such as directing the Chief Minister's Office to provide information about his initiatives pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 03.03.2016 and to take over all the pension schemes from Municipal Corporations. The said directions were clearly outside the scope of the appeal preferred by respondent no.5.
10. It is at once clear from the aforesaid directions that the same are wholly without jurisdiction and plainly outside the scope of the CIC's powers under the Act. The CIC is a statutory body constituted under Section 12 of the Act and has to perform its function and exercise its powers strictly in accordance with the Act. Its functions and powers are circumscribed by the provisions of the Act. Section 19 (8) - which is referred to by the CIC is limited to issuing directions for (a) requiring the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act; (b) requiring the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; (c) to impose any of the penalties provided under this Act; and (d) to reject the application made before it. Section 19(8) of the Act does not empower the CIC to issue any other directions except as specified therein. Clearly, the directions given by the CIC - to the Lieutenant Governor to take remedial measures to ensure strict compliance of eligibility norms in pension schemes and to obtain a comprehensive note on payment of pensions by three MCDs, and the order holding Area Municipal Counselors, their political parties and the Honorable Mayors to be accountable and responsible for following the norms prescribed for pensions are outside the ambit of Section 19(8) of the Act."
10. With the above observations, these cases are disposed of.
Page 7 of 911. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कुमार गप्ु ता) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) दिनांक / Date: 06-05-2020 Authenticated true copy (अशिप्रमाणित सत्यावपत प्रनत) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. िमाग), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 8 of 9 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Security Printing And Minting Corporation Of India Limited (SPMCIL), PIO, 16th Floor, awahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi- 110001.
2. Mr. Satish Ashok Sherkhane Page 9 of 9