Central Information Commission
Binod Agarwal vs Seepz Special Economic Zone on 27 January, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SSEZO/C/2020/688695
Binod Agarwal. .........िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office Of Development
Commissioner, SEEPZ-Special
Economic Zone, RTI Cell,
Anderi East, Mumbai-400096,
Maharashtra ......... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19/01/2022
Date of Decision : 19/01/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 13/12/2019
CPIO replied on : 10/01/2020
First appeal filed on : 21/01/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 11/02/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NiL
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 13.12.2019 seeking the following information:1
"Brief Facts :- Three different letters where issued by Mr. Ram Harish Choudhary to Police station for registration of F.I.R for email hacking of Mr. Mahesh Yadav DDC. Please provide pars & point wise reply under RTI ACT 2005 and it is also requested to refer Judgement of Hon'ble CIC passed on 30 10.19.
1. Complaint Letter no SEEPZ-SEZ/ADMN/PER/BA/1/2016-17 dated 06.09.18 against Binod Agarwal sent to cyber cell Bandra Police station only there is no copy to letter, received by Cyber Police station on 06.09.18 With respect to above complaint-
a. Please provide certified copy of noting which contains remarks and recommendations of dealing authorities and also final decision of the competent authority regarding the above letter.
b. Sanction letter/Approval letter of competent authority to file police complaint to cyber police station c. Authorization letter of Mr. Mahesh Yadav then DDC SEEPZ to Mr. Ram Harish Choudhary to file Police complaint on his behalf as complaint was regarding DDC email ID was hacked.
d. Complaint letter of DDC Mahesh Yadav to competent Authority that his email ID is hacked.
e. Please provide the certified copy of complaint at para 1 above f. Please provide the departmental inquiry report as complaint is against Ex employee.
2. Complaint Letter no SEEPZ- SEZ-/ADMN/PER/BA/1/2016-17 dated 06.09.18 against Binod Agarwal sent to cyber cell Bandra Police station and copy to MIDC Police station, received by MIDC Police station on 07.09.18.
With respect to above complaint:-
a. Please provide certified copy of noting which contains remarks and recommendations of dealing authorities and also final decision of the competent authority regarding the above letter. b. Sanction letter/Approval letter of competent authority to file police complaint to cyber police station and MIDC Police station c. Authorization letter of Shri Mahesh Yadav then DDC SEEPZ to Mr. Ram Harish Choudhary to file Police complaint on his behalf to MIDC Police station has complaint was regarding DDC email ID was hacked.2
d. Complaint letter of DDC Mahesh Yadav to competent Authority that his email ID is hacked.
e. Please provide the certified copy of complaint at para 2 above f. Please provide the departmental inquiry report as complaint is against Ex employee.
3. Complaint Letter no SEEPZ-SEZ/ADMN/PER/BA/1/2016-17 dated 08.09.18 against Unknown person sent to MIDC Police station, received by MIDC Police station on 08.09.18.
With respect to above complaint:-
a. Please provide certified copy of noting which contains remarks and recommendations of dealing authorities and also final decision of the competent authority regarding the above letter. b. Sanction letter/Approval letter of competent authority to file police complaint to MIDC police station against unknown person c. Authorization letter of Shri Mahesh Yadav then DDC SEEPZ to Mr. Ram Harish Choudhary to file Police complaint on his behalf has comp."
The CPIO furnished para wise reply to the complainant on 10.01.2020. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 21.01.2020. FAA's order dated 11.02.2020 directed the CPIO against para 1(e) of the RTI application which is as follows:-
"............I find that the information provided by the CPIO is based on available records, however there is no provision in the RTI Act, 2005 that the CPIO is bound to create the information or collect the information from different sources to make available to the RTI applicant.
As regard Para 1 (e), the CPIO is hereby directed to revisit the RTI application in respect of Para 1(e) and take appropriate necessary steps as per provisions contained in RTI Act, 2005."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-3
Complainant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Anurag Agarwal, Dy. Development Commissioner & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Complainant expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply at point no. 1(e) of RTI Application on the following grounds -
1. " ....I had sought certain information which was denied by CPIO and thereafter I filed Appeal where Appellate authority directed CPIO for providing the information in certain case.
2. When I didn't received information I have sent reminder (which is annexed as Annexure 1) which they replied that they would process shortly (is annexed as Annexure 2) Appellant again sent reminder (which is annexed as Annexure 3 ) but received no reply. Hence the 2 nd appeal/complaint.
3. Further CPIO in his reply at para 1(e) directed to collect information from Cyber cell Bandra where in RTI Act No such directions can be given. If the information is held by CPIO he needs to provide rather than giving directions more over Appellant sought information for three different letter for which they have given same file noting which is false information provided by CPIO as communication dated 06.09.18 is against appellant and communication dated 08.09.18 is against unknown person. Hence file noting cannot be same. If the information is not held than CPIO cannot create information and provide false information....."
Per contra, the CPIO submitted that the instant RTI Application was replied by his predecessor and he took over the charge in September, 2020. He further reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 14.01.2022, relevant extracts of which are as under -
"....Further in this connection, it may be mentioned that Reminder stipulated in application dated 11.10.18 addressed to CIC, New Delhi are not on record of this office.
Further it has been stated that, it applicant has filed 34 RTI application in this office as attached in Annexure A. RTI application no. SSEZO/R/2019/50013 dated 23.07.2019 at Sr. no. 24 (of Annexed - A) the applicant filed Appeal and First Appellate Authority has decided and passed order dt. 18.10.2019 which are as follows:
In respect of "In case of RTI Application of Shri Binod Agarwal, the appellate had pass order dated 18.10.2019 and observed that, number of 4 complaints are pending in the Department of Commerce against Shri S.T. Venkatachalapathy, former Dy. Secretary (Vigilance), wherein one complaint is of this office which was submitted in the month of March, 2019 by the then Development Commissioner on the basis of Forensic Report, wherein it has been revealed that some Officer/Official of SEEPZ is involved with Shri Binod Agarwal along with former Dy. Secretary (Vigilance), Shri S.T. Venkatachalapathy in filing various the Ministry may target the senior officers of SEEPZ-SEZ. Since, the records suggest that the applicant was in direct touch with the person being investigated, the inspection of desired records will impede the ongoing investigation.
Additionally, it was noted that the appellant has been actively involved in various matters of complaints and counter complaints in this office and the information now desired does not appear to serve any larger public interest and accept to aggravate the situation for individual interests.
In above view, the FAA fortified by the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012, dated 3rd October, 2012 in the matter of Shri Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central information Commission, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia concluded that "the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. Hence, the same is dismissed".
In this case, FAA have also not found any larger public interest in the Information inspection desired by the appellant, as requested files desired by the appellant for inspection do not pertain to public related matters and the said inspection may impede the investigation as discussed above may impede the investigation as discussed above.
Further, keeping in view the facts above and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central information Commission and ongoing investigation against former Dy. Secretary (Vigilance), Shri S.T. Venkatachalapathy in the Ministry, I find no infirmity in the reply given by the CPIO, SEEPZ-SEZ in terms of Section 8(h) of RTI Act. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
So far as the alleged contention of the Appellant w.r.t. larger public interest as corrupt activities going on in SEEPZ, it is submitted that the Appellant is misguiding the Hon'ble CIC, as he, while working in SEEPZ, did not stand 5 against such alleged corruption, if any, and did not lodge any complaint. All the complaints/RTIs (34 in total vide Annex. B) and litigations have been filed only after his termination from the SEEPZ as reinstatement in the SEEPZ was not permitted by any court of law. No such complaint filed during his tenure, has been exhibited. The intention of the Appellant clearly speaks to settle personal score against the third party. Neither the Appellant has made a bona fide public interest in seeking information under RTI, nor established his case that the information sought for is for the larger public interest..."
Lastly, the CPIO at the behest of the Commission agreed to provide a copy of the complaint in response to point no. 1(e) to the Complainant.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the reply of CPIO at point no. 1(e) of RTI Application was evasive and largely fails to comply with the provisions of RTI Act. The CPIO instead of providing the relevant information on the said point by transferring the RTI Application to the concerned Public Authority under Section 6(3) of RTI Act or accessing the said information by invoking Section 5(4) of RTI Act vaguely informed the Complainant to collect the same from Cyber Cell, Bandra.
The Commission expresses severe displeasure over the conduct of the CPIO in having evaded the responsibility to act in the letter and spirit of RTI Act. However, no penal action is warranted in the matter for want of any malafide intention apparent on the part of the CPIO.
Nonetheless, Commission expects CPIOs under RTI Act to be reasonable in their approach while dealing with RTI Applications and to rather assist the RTI Applicant to the extent possible in securing the access to information. Further, taking an empathetic view in the matter, the CPIO is advised to make necessary arrangements for facilitating the information as sought for at point no. 1(e)to the Complainant, as stated by him during hearing in a time bound manner.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 6 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 7