Central Information Commission
O P Yadav vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 14 May, 2020
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई ददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NPCOI/A/2018/152514-BJ
Mr. O. P. Yadav
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Manager,
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited,
Narora Atomic Power Station,
PO : Naps Township, Narora,
Distt. Bulandshahr - 203389
...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.05.2020
Date of Decision : 14.05.2020
Date of RTI application 30.03.2018
CPIO's response 24.04.2018
Date of the First Appeal 08.05.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 16.07.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 27.08.2018
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 10 points regarding the copy of affiliation provided by the Ministry of Labour and Employment to the Union/Association based on the process held on 18.01.2018 in Narora Atomic Power Station and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 24.04.2018, provided a point-wise information to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 16.07.2018, upheld the CPIOs response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajkumar Appellant's representative, through TC;
Respondent: Mr. M. P. Rath, DGM (HR) through TC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that complete and satisfactory information as sought in the RTI application was not received by him, till date. He further submitted that the information sought pertained to corrupt practices adopted in Union verification/election and therefore, Page 1 of 4 to unearth such corrupt practices, he desired the requisite information. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the replies of the CPIO/FAA and stated that a point-wise suitable response was provided to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, the Appellant had sought on some point's interpretative/hypothetical/opinion of the Respondent and the same was accordingly clarified as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. On being queried by the Commission whether any complaint regarding the alleged malpractices was filed with the Labour Commission/Senior Management, the Appellant replied in the affirmative and stated that misleading information/documents were submitted before the Labour Commission by the Respondent Public Authority.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 12.05.2020 wherein while contesting the replies of the CPIO/FAA, it was inter alia submitted that the information sought had been wrongly denied under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, it was prayed to the Commission to direct the CPIO to furnish him the desired information as well as impose penalty on the erring CPIO and grant him compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for refusing the information on whimsical grounds, as per the decision of the Commission in File No. CIC/BS/C/2014/000294 in the matter of Kishan Lal Vs. BSNL, etc. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 08.05.2020 wherein a point-wise reply to the 2nd Appeal of the Appellant was reiterated. It was further submitted that a point wise response / information as available had already been provided to the Appellant in accordance with the true spirit of RTI Act 2005 which is absolutely in order, appropriate and nothing beyond this can be provided. In view of the above, it was submitted that the information/ response as held or under control of NPCIL/NAPS had already been provided to him within the frame work and the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 and that nothing has been concealed.
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 4
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, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum. The Director (HR) is advised to resolve the grievances of the Appellant as per extant guidelines.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
(Bimal Julka) (नबमल जुल्का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) K.L. Das (के .एल.दास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] ददनांक / Date: 14.05.2020 Page 3 of 4 Copy to:-
1. Mr. Mukesh Singhal, Director (HR), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, Directorate of Human Resource, Vikram Sarabhai Bhawan, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094 Page 4 of 4