Central Information Commission
Veeraiah Hiremath vs National Commission For Safai ... on 30 September, 2021
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
Files No. : CIC/NCFSK/A/2020/106733 +
CIC/NCFSK/A/2020/106734 +
CIC/NCFSK/A/2020/106739 +
CIC/NCFSK/A/2020/106735+
CIC/NCFSK/A/2020/106736+
CIC/NCFSK/A/2020/106737 +
CIC/NCFSK/A/2020/106738
Veeraiah Hiremath ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Commission For Safai
Karamcharis, RTI Cell, B
Wing, 4th Floor, LokNayak
Bhawan, Khan Market, New
Delhi-110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28/09/2021
Date of Decision : 28/09/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred appeals have been clubbed for decision as these are
based on the same subject matter of RTI Application for different periods.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
1
Files No. RTI CPIO Reply First FAA Order Appeal
Appeal
106733 09.09.2019 N.A. 17.10.2019 09.12.2019 01.02.2020
106734 09.09.2019 N.A. 17.10.2019 09.12.2019 01.02.2020
106739 09.09.2019 N.A. 17.10.2019 09.12.2019 01.02.2020
106735 09.09.2019 N.A. 17.10.2019 09.12.2019 01.02.2020
106736 09.09.2019 N.A. 17.10.2019 09.12.2019 01.02.2020
106737 09.09.2019 N.A. 17.10.2019 09.12.2019 01.02.2020
106738 09.09.2019 N.A. 17.10.2019 09.12.2019 01.02.2020
CIC/NCFSK/A/2020/106733,
CIC/NCFSK/A/2020/106734,
CIC/NCFSK/A/2020/106739,
CIC/NCFSK/A/2020/106735,
CIC/NCFSK/A/2020/106736,
CIC/NCFSK/A/2020/106737&
CIC/NCFSK/A/2020/106738
Information sought:
The Appellant filed RTI application(s) dated 09.09.2019 seeking the following information for the period of January and December-2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 & 2018 as under;
"Provide the complete details of each and every sentence mentioned by you (KSCSK)in the Joint Commission Report your letter No. KSCSK/S-
5/CR.12/2018-19/1536 and dated 06-03-2019 [The information got from the SAI regarding SK's, complaint made by VEERAIAH HIREMATH].
Provide the certified copies of the payment made by the SAI to the HKA and to the SK account by the contractor along with the bank transaction details (bank official seal and signature) under the Minimum-Wages -Act.
Provide the submitted ECR copy of PF and ESIgot from the SAIalong with the ESI, PF (with UAN) numbers of all 22 SK. (Names/Signature/thumb impression as they had mentioned in my earlier later dated 27.06.2019).
2Provide the certified copiesof the details got from the SAI under the CL- Act /S&E-Act /PW- Act /PF- Act/ESI-Act/NFH- Act / Bonus-Act/ Minimum Wages
-Act and LWF Act. Provide the list of unskilled, skilled and highly skilled workers have been working for the SAI under HKA."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal(s) dated 17.10.2019 against each RTI Application(s). FAA's vide common orders dated 09.12.2019 disposed of his first appeal(s) stating as follows:-
"The original applications of the applicant and the reply given by the CPIO has been carefully examined. It has been found that the RTI applications made by the applicant contained abbreviations such as SAI, HKA, SK etc. which made it difficult for the CPIO to understand the information sought. Moreover, the letter number i.e. KSCSK/S-5/CR12/2018-19/1536 referred to by the applicant made the CPIO understand that theinformation sought pertains to Karnataka State Safai Karamchari Commission.
Therefore, the CPIO and Astt. Director, in good faith, transferred the RTI application vide letter dated 18.09.2019 to Karnataka State Commission for Safai Karamcharis for providing reply directly to the applicant and also endorsed a copy of this letter to the applicant for his information.
However, on receipt of First Appeal the undersigned examined the matter in detail. Thereafter, all out efforts were made to trace the information sought by the applicant. The Office of the Hon'ble Member Sh. Jagdish Hiremani was also contacted. The files relating to his Tour Reports were also searched thoroughly.
Now, the information received from the Office of Hon'ble Member and the information received from the Sports Authority of India as an action taken report on the tour report of the Hon'ble Member Sh. JagdishHiremani, is enclosed herewith. The Office of Hon'ble Member has categorically informed that there is no Joint Commission Report available in their office. The information available with this Commission is being provided herewith fully to the applicant."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
3Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Yasmin Sultana, Assistant Director (R & D)/ CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Appellant while narrating the factual background of the case stated that he had filed a written complaint/representation with the Respondent authority, based on which the Hon'ble Member (Shri Jagdish Hiremani) of NCFSK visited the Sports Authority of India to investigate the socio-economic/working conditions of the said authority. He further stated that through the instant RTI Application, he has sought the copy of the said inspection report and also the details of payment made by the Sports Authority of India to their house keeping agency, however he is aggrieved by the fact that no such information has been provided to him till date.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of her written submission dated 24.09.2021 as under -
"...The applicant had asked to provide Joint Commission Report of KSCSK. The applicant had not mentioned as to which Commission had prepared this Joint Commission Report, what was its date, who had signed it, what was the subject of the Report etc. In the absence of these particulars, it was not possible for the CPIO to comprehend as to what Joint Commission Report is being sought by the applicant. This CPIO had no information about any Joint Commission Report of National Commission for SafaiKarmacharis (NCSK). The RTI applications made by the applicant contained several abbreviations. This made it even more difficult to understand the context of the information sought by the applicant.
The letter number i.e. KSCSK/S-5/CR12/2018-19/1536 dated 6.3.2019 referred by the applicant in his RTI applications as "your letter" does not belong to National Commission for SafaiKaramcharis (NCSK) and hence it made the CPIO understand that the information pertains to Karnataka State Safai Karamchari Commission.
Therefore, in good faith, presuming that KSCSK means Karnataka State Commission for Safai Karamcharis, the CPIO transferred his RTI applications vide letter dated 18.09.2019 to Karnataka State Commission for Safai Karamcharis u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 informing that the information sought by the applicant is not available with NCSK and it seems 4 that the information pertains to Karnataka State Commission for Safai Karamcharis (KSCSK). A copy of this letter was endorsed to the applicant.
The 07 IPOs of Rs. 10/- each accompanying the RTI Applications were also returned to the applicant for not being addressed to the correct authority. Later vide letter dated 10.10.2019 Sh. Veeraiah Hiremath sent 07 IPOs addressed to correct authority but since his application was already transferred to Karnataka State Commission for Safai Karamcharis, these IPOs were also returned to him in original vide letter dated 17.10.2019.
4. Further, on the directions of first Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Director (NCSK), the records of R&D section were again searched but no information as sought by the applicant was found.
However, since Sh. Veeraiah Hiremath mentioned the name of "Sh. Jagadeeshji NCSK" in his First Appeal (this was not mentioned in his RTI application), the office of Sh. Jagdish Hiremani (then Member of NCSK) was approached. The Office of the then Member informed that no Joint Commission Report, as sought by the applicant was available with them but they provided the following documents:
A letter no. SAI/NSSC/RTI-494/2018 dated 22.1.2019 of Sports Authority of India, Bangalore along with its Annexures which inter-alia contained details of wages with break-up paid to unskilled and skilled labourers to Housekeeping Agency.
A letter no SAI/NSSC/AD.MH/HK-National Commission/494/2018 dated 20.03.2019 of Sports Authority of India, Bangalore, inter-alia, informing that they do not have safai karamcharis but only cleaning staff.
A letter dated 12.2.2019 in regional language.
Minutes of some meeting in regional language.
The 1st Appeal of Sh. Veeraiah Hiremath was disposed off by providing him all the abovementioned information received from the Office of Hon'ble Member Sh. Jagdish Hiremani and the information received from the Sports Authority of India as an action taken report on the tour report of the Hon'ble Member Sh. Jagdish Hiremani. The Office of Hon'ble Member Sh. Jagdish Hiremani categorically informed that there was no Joint Commission Report available with them.
It is earnestly submitted that the undersigned had transferred his RT1 application to Karnataka State Commission for Safai Karamcharis (KSCSK) in good faith, without any malafide intention. The undersigned has not attempted to hide anything and whatever information was later received was provided to the applicant after his 1st Appeal. It is again submitted that 5 no other information as sought by the applicant is available with the National Commission for Safai Karamcharis (NCSK)."
To a query from the Commission, the Appellant denied the receipt of the averred written submission, in response to which the CPIO at the behest of the Commission agreed to provide a copy of the same to the Appellant through email at [email protected].
Further, the CPIO while rebutting the Appellant's contention stated that the copy of Investigation Report was never sought by the Appellant in his original RTI Application and also regarding payment related information, she added that such records are not available in their office.
Lastly, she apprised the Commission that whatever information is available with them has been provided to the Appellant and no other additional information is available at their end.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the queries raised by the Appellant in the RTI Application are vague and very cumbersome which makes it difficult for the CPIO to comprehend the exact nature of information sought and inturn providing the same to the Appellant, however the CPIO in his/her wisdom in keeping with the spirit of RTI Act has provided sufficient information to him, merits of which is undisputable.
It is also pertinent to note that the information sought for at para 2- 4 of RTI Application including the salary/payment related details of housekeeping employees stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; GirishRamchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner &Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India &Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:6
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Now, upon the insistence of the Appellant and considering the submissions of the parties during hearing, the CPIO is directed firstly to provide a complete copy of her written submission dated 24.09.2021; and secondly to revisit the contents of the RTI Application to provide a revised point wise categorical reply to the Appellant along with any additional available relevant information,after redacting the personal details of third party's disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In the event, the information sought for at any para of RTI Application is not available in his/her office record then a categorical statement to this effect may be reflected in the revised reply.
The aforesaid reply/information shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal (s) are disposed of accordingly.
SarojPunhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 7 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8