Central Information Commission
D Sarat Chandran vs Rubber Board on 10 April, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/RUBBO/A/2022/654393 +
CIC/RUBBO/A/2022/655848
D SARAT CHANDRAN ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
JOINT RUBBER PRODUCTION
COMMISSIONER (Dev) I/C.,
THE RUBBER BOARD, P.B NO
1122, SUB JAIL ROAD,
KOTTAYAM-686002, KERALA. .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28/03/2023
Date of Decision : 28/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision
as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeals:
RTI application filed on : 28/04/2022
CPIO replied on : 19/05/2022
First appeal filed on : 23/06/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 22/07/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10/10/2022
1
CIC/RUBBO/A/2022/654393
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.04.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Will the copy of the application dated 11.08.2022 sent to your office by the Special Tahsildar, Additional LA Unit, Civil Station, Kudappanakkunnu, Thiruvananthapuram, (referred to in Certificate No. Reg.3/138/11/ Valuation/ 2019-20/RPD) for assessing the value of the rubber trees standing in the lands acquired in Karippur Village for ISRO, LPSC in Valiyamala, Nedumangad, be made available?
2. Will the copy of the file in your office containing the information relating to the assessment of value for the purpose be made available?"
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 19.05.2022 by stating as under:
"Qn. No.1: As per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,2005, the disclosure of information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no connection with any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion into the privacy of the individual are exempted to the extent it is not found to be in public interest. Therefore, it is informed that the copy of the said application from the Special Tahsildar, Additional LA Unit, Civil Station, Kudappanakkunnu, Regional cannot be made available as requested for.
Qn.No. 2: As per section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of any information which is likely to cause threat to the life and property of another person, such information can be refused to be given. Therefore, it is informed that considering the threat that may be caused to the life and property of the complainant and the officer who took action, copies of the records containing the names and other particulars cannot be given as requested for."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.06.2022. FAA's order, dated 22.07.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
2CIC/RUBBO/A/2022/655848 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.04.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Was the value of the rubber trees standing in the lands acquired in Karippur Village for ISRO, LPSC in Valiyamala, Nedumangad, as per Certificate No. Reg.3/138/11/Valuation/2019-20/RPD, assessed in accordance with the norms and directions stipulated by the Rubber Board? If so, how much? Will the details be disclosed?
2. If not, what are the reasons?
3. Who were the officials deputed by the Rubber Board for assessing the value of the rubber trees? What are their designations? Will it be disclosed?"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 19.05.2022 and stated as under:
"On. No.1: In assessing the value of the rubber trees, assessment was made in accordance with the norms and directions stipulated by the Rubber Board.
Qn.No. 2: Not applicable.
Qn.No.3: The Rubber Board deputes officers having technical expertise for assessing the value of rubber trees.
As per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,2005, " 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 " are exempted from disclosure. Therefore, it is informed that the names and particulars of the officials who made the assessment cannot be given."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.06.2022. FAA's order, dated 22.07.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal (s).
3Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: K .P. Rajeeve Dy. Rubber Production Commissioner & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant narrated at length the gensis of instant RTI Applications being the alleged irregularity of Respondent organization in not granting proper compensation to land owners including Appellant against plantation of rubber trees on land which was acquired by ISRO. In this regard, he also invited attention of the bench towards his latest written submission dated 22.03.2023 wherein he including interalia stated as under -
"...1. For the expansion of ISRO, LPSC, Valiyamala, Nedumangad, Govt of India has decided to acquire 67.68 acres of land including the appellants land in Karipur Village, Nedumangad taluk under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ,in public interest .
2. The Special Tahsildar who is the land acquisition Officer has the responsibility to calculate and finalize the compensation to be paid to each land owner .The amount of compensation constitutes the market price of the land plus the value of trees standing therein plus the value of other assets.
3. In order to determine the compensation for land acquisition the value of the rubber trees standing on the land to be acquired has to be determined by the Land Acquisition Officer .But he has no technical knowledge in determining the value of rubber trees . As per Section 29(2) of the Land Acquisition Act the Special Tahsildar who has entrusted the task of land acquisition has everyright to use the services of Rubber Board for determination of value of rubber trees. For this Special Tahsildar has sought public assistance from Rubber Board and Rubber Board has given assistance publicly.
4. The Rubber Board is the only public sector undertaking doing the service of assessing the value of rubber trees in Kerala. Rubber Board has their own guidelines and norms for assessing the value of Rubber trees for this they impose service charge and GST from the applicant. As per their guidelines and norms the value of rubber trees of each farmer is to be assessed after collecting the following 4 details, the tapping age of the rubber trees ,average estimated total yield from the trees, the available timber volume of the trees, the present market price of rubber and salvage value, estimated cost of maintenance , processing etc and the estimated net income that may be received on the basis of the current price and expenses. For assessing the above matters the assistance from the concerned farmers is also necessary.
5. At the request of Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition the assessment of the value of about 23000 rubber trees belonging to 133 farmers was prepared separately for each farmer by the Rubber Board without giving any notice to the farmers, in one day. A certificate dt 08/10/2020 was issued by Rubber Board to the Special Tahsildar stating that the said certificate is issued on the basis of application received at Rubber Board Regional Office, Nedumangad on 11/08/2020.A Ref 3/38/11/valuation/2019-20/RPD dt 08/10/2020 is also noted in the certificate.
6. Normally four to six months is required for collecting the details and for the assessment of the value of about 23000 rubber trees belonging to 133 farmers based on the guidelines and norms issued by the Rubber Board, if sufficient man power is available to them. There is shortage of rubber trees assessed in the applicant's property and also the property of other family members. The Rubber Board has not followed their norms and guidelines in assessing the value of rubber trees. The norms in which the present assessment was made has not been mentioned in the certificate if compensation is fixed based on the certificate of Rubber Board there will be huge deficit in the amount of compensation and may cause heavy loss to the appellant and his family members .As land owners, the appellant and his family members have a right to verify whether the details collected and value assessed are correct or not and challenge the same before the Authority mentioned in the Land Acquisition Act,2013.
7. To ascertain this fact the appellant has filed six applications under RTI Act on 28/04/2022 to the CPI0 of the Nedumangad Regional Office of the Rubber Board xxx
18. In order to determine the compensation for land acquisition the value of the rubber trees standing on the land to be acquired has to be determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. As per Section 29(2) of the Land Acquisition Act the Special Tahsildar who is entrusted the task of land acquisition has every right to use the services of Rubber Board for determination of value of rubber trees. The Special Tahsildar has sought public assistance from Rubber Board and Rubber Board has given assistance publkty. The reason stated for refusing the second request is the 5 provisions contained in Section 8(1)(g)of RTI Act. The said provisions is in respect of disclosure of information which is likely to cause threat to the implementation of the law or security or leading to identification of source of information or causing threats to personal safety of any person who has rendered secret assistance. Rubber Board is an institution providing service to the needy. They are doing public service. There is no harm in providing information in the file regarding the details of assistance given by the Rubber Board in collecting the details and assessing the value of rubber trees. The activities of Rubber Board in this matter will not come with in the purview of Section 8(1)(g).There is no information contained in the file ,the disclosure of which may cause threat to the person or property of any individual .Therefore the findings of CPIO and the First Appellant Authority are erroneous ,unlawful and against the provisions in RTI Act...."
In case no. CIC/RUBBO/A/2022/654393 -
The CPIO while reiterating the contents of his latest written submission dated 23.03.2023 submitted that for points no. 1 , no copy of the application dated 11.08.2022 send by the Special Tahsildar, Additional LA Unit, Civil Station, Kudappanakkunnu, Thiruvananthapuram, (referred to in Certificate No. Reg.3/138/11/ Valuation/ 2019-20/RPD) for assessing the value of the rubber trees standing in the lands acquired in Karippur Village for ISRO, LPSC in Valiyamala, Nedumangad, (as sought for) is available in their office records. He further tendered his apology to the fact that due to clerical error the date of application dated 11.08.2022 has been inadvertently mentioned as 11.08.2020 which may kindly be avoided. While for point no. 2, the complete details of files related to valuation of Rubber trees contains the elements of personal information of third parties/owners or officers particularly, which cannot be divulged in view of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
The Appellant interjected to contest the complete denial of information by the CPIO is not appropriate in view of the fact the Appellant's land was also acquired during acquisition process for plantation of Rubber trees. Therefore, relevant information concerning him atleast should be provided. In response to it, the CPIO at the behest of the Commission agreed to share the requisite information concerning Appellant only.
In case no. CIC/RUBBO/A/2022/655848 -
6The Appellant while again reiterating the contents of his above mentioned factual background expressed his dissatisfaction with the response of CPIO. In this regard, the Commission apprised the Appellant that the queries raised by him are seeking clarification based on conjectures which concededly do not falls under the ambit of "information" as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
The CPIO by placing reliance on his written submission dated 23.03.2023 submitted that the queries raised by the Appellant are majorly outside Section 2(f) of RTI Act and also hit by Section 8(1)(j)/ (e) of the Act. Nonetheless, a point wise reply along with relevant permissible information has been parted with the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset upon a perusal of records and after hearing submission of both the parties observes that the core issue raised in the instant matters is not as much as about seeking access to information as much it is about the redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding alleged illegal irregularities followed by Respondent organization in granting compensation in lieu of acquisition of land for plantation of Rubber Trees and seeking clarifications from the CPIO in this regard..
Here, 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 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. 7 Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein 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 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) As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of 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 wherein it has been 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 fora. 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 be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another 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."8
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) In case no. CIC/RUBBO/A/2022/654393 -
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission further notes upon scrutiny of records observes that earlier reply of CPIO at point no. 1 is not in consonance with the submissions tendered during hearing and furthermore, the blanket denial of information by the CPIO in reference to point no. 2 by invoking Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of RTI Act ignoring the fact that Appellant was also one of the co-owner of land whose land has been acquired for the purpose of planation of rubber trees, was not in the spirit of RTI Act.
In view of the above and in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to revisit the contents of RTI Application and provide a revised reply intimating the factum of availability/ non-availability of records coupled with relevant information concerning the Appellant only after masking the names and identifying particulars of the other third party officers, if any, which may figure in the noting /comments/ report and cannot be divulged in view of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. 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.--
(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...."9
The information as directed above shall be provided along with a completed copy of latest written submission, free of cost to the Appellant by the CPIO after accessing the same from the concerned record holder within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
In case no. CIC/RUBBO/A/2022/655848 -
In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Application is of the considered view that the queries raised by the Appellant are based on conjectures which concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act per se.
Nonetheless, the reply provided by the CPIO is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
Further, the issue raised by the Appellant challenging the veracity of information furnished by the CPIO is purely a matter of grievance which is outside the mandate of RTI Act.
However, in pursuance to clause 4 of the hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a 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(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहा न)
Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ#भ मा%णत स&या'पत त)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक /
10