Central Information Commission
Ashok Kumar R Parmar vs Ministry Of Information & Broadcasting on 2 February, 2023
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
File No: CIC/MOIAB/A/2021/152707
Ashok Kumar R Parmar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
M/o Information and Broadcasting,
RTI Cell, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
CPIO,
Directorate of Film Festivals
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
Government of India
Siri fort Auditorium Complex,
August Kranti Marg,
New Delhi- 110049 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/02/2023
Date of Decision : 01/02/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29/07/2021
CPIO replied on : 16/08/2021; 27/08/2021 & 05/10/2021
First appeal filed on : 02/09/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 17/09/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24/11/2021
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.07.2021 seeking the following information and upon receipt of the same through transfer from Respondent No.1 online on 16.08.2021, the CPIO, Directorate of Film Festivals, furnished a reply to the appellant on 27.08.2021 stating as under:
Sl. Question Answer
No.
1 Kindly provide details 0f the funds DFF provided following amount to ESG,
released by DFF to Entertainment Goa for organization of IFFI, Goa since
Society of Goa for organization of last 2 years:
International Film Festival of India, 49th IFFI, 2018
Goa since last 2 years. 1. EMA: Rs. 4,79,92,800/-
2.Air Travel:1,37,48,782/-
3.Air Travel:32,95,738/-
50th IFFI, 2019
1.EMA: Rs. 5,67,00,000/-
2.Air Travel:1,75,61,988/-
(Copies of bills & Sanctions are enclosed at Annexure 'I') 2 Kindly provide the and details of Desired information is enclosed at expenditure done by Directorate of Annexure 'II'. Film Festival(DFF) for the funds released to Entertainment Society of The said work had been executed by ESG Goa(ESG) for last 2 years duly as per rule and DFF released the supported by photocopies of the bills payment within the approved sanctions. along with sanction order issued with the approval of the competent financial authority including copy of the relevant contract/agreement/job order/supply order/MoU to ascertain whether the work/procurement were implemented in a fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost effective manner in terms of Rule 70 of GFR, 2017.
3 Complete details of the guests who i. Photo Copy of the sample invitation had attended International Film letter is enclosed as similar letters were Festival of India, Goa. sent to all the i. Photocopy of invitation letter invitees (Annexure 'lll'). addressed io each guest.
ii. Name, address, and occupation of ii. List of invited guests during 49th & 50th each guest (film IFFI is enclosed at Annexure 'IV'.
2delegates/government employee/other etc.) Photocopy of invitation letter addressed to each The information with regard to point no. guest. iii, iv & v will be provided by ESG, Goa as iii. expenditure incurred on air travel, the expenditure on these heads is born class of travel (Business/Economy) and by them. cost of the ticket.
iv. Expenditure incurred on hotel stay, details of the room occupied (double or single occupancy), occupancy (Days/Nights) v. Expenditure incurred on the transport facility availed, name/s of agency who had provided transport facility.
4 Details of tender floated by Entertainment Society of Goa had Directorate of Film Festival (DFF) lor floated the tender for selection of Event selection of Event Management Management Agency/PR Agency for Agency/PR Agency for 49th and 50th 49th and 50th edition of edition of International Film Festival of International Film Festival of India, Goa. India, Goa.
5 Details of expenditure by Directorate Same as point no. II above.
of Film Festival (DFF) 0n hiring/engaging event Management Agency/PR agency for last 2 years for organisation o{ International Film Festival of India, Goa supported by photocopies of the bills along with sanctioned order issued with the approval of the competent financial authority including copy of the contract/agreement/job order/supply order/MoU to ascertain whether the work/procurement were implemented in a fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost effective manner in terms of Rule 70 of GFR, 2017.
6 Details of expenditure done by Same as point no. ll above. Directorate of Film The utilization Certificated for hiring of Festival(DFF)/Entertainment Society of EMA/PR agency will by provide by ESG, Goa (ESG) for last two editions of Goa international Film Festival of India towards hiring of Event Management agency/PR agency, utilization 3 certificates given by ESG for the amount paid by DFF to ESG supported by photocopies of the bills along with sanctioned order issued with the approval of the competent financial authority including copy of the contract/agreement/job order/supply order/MoU to ascertain whether the work procurement were implemented in a fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost effective manner in terms of Rule 70 of GFR, 2017.
7 Details of audit done for the DFF (IFFI) Audit was done for 49th & 50th expenditure done by DFF and IFFI in the financial year 2020-21 and the Entertainment Society of Goa for audit report is still awaited. Details of organisation of last two editions of the audit regarding ESG, Goa will be International Film Festival of India provided by them. towards hiring of Event Management agency/PR agency.
8 Provide the copies of audit done for Same point no. vii above.
the entire expenditure done by Directorate of Film Festival and Entertainment Society of Goa for organisation of last two editions of International Film Festival of India.
9 Provide details for the total Details of expenditure incurred for all expenditure incurred for all activities activities are enclosed at Annecure 'v'. for organization of International Film Festival of India, Goa since last 2 years along with utilization certificates and The total no. of pages is approx.. 200 supported by photocopies of the bills pages. It is requested to kindly submit along with sanctioned order issued photo copy charges @Rs. 2 per page to with the approval of the competent provide the documents as mention in the financial authority including copy of point no. ix. The DD is in favour of PAO the contract/agreement/job (MS), Ministry of Information & order/supply order/MoU to ascertain Broadcasting. whether the work/procurement were implemented in a fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost effective manner in terms of Rule 70 of GFR, 2017.
On 27.08.2021, the CPIO, Directorate of Film Festivals, transferred the RTI Application to Entertainment Society of Goa (ESG) stating as under:
4"Aforementioned RTI is being transferred to your office under the section 6(3) of the RTI act, 2005. The reqursite information may kindly be provided to the applicant with regard to the relevant points (iii) sub-point iii, iv, v; .(vi); (vii); (viii) of the enclosed RTI under intimation to this Directorate."
The ESG provided a reply to the Appellant on 05.10.2021 enclosing annexures of information for all the points referred to them.
The Appellant in the meantime paid the additional charges to the CPIO, DFF vide a communication dated 13.10.2021 as sought for supplying copy of documents at point no.9 of the CPIO's reply of 27.08.2021.
The CPIO, DFF replied to the Appellant on 12.11.2021 stating as under:
"The CPIO had sent the reply along with five annexures comprising 30 pages vide email dated 03/09/2021 as an attachment (printout enclosed). In the said reply against point (ix) it had been inter alia mentioned that "the total number of pages is approx. 200 pages". This was a typographical error, as the total number of pages was in fact, "20" and not "200". The details contained in the "20" pages had already been annexed to the aforementioned reply.
Hence, the Demand Draft No. 700619 dated 13/10/2021 for Rs. 400/- is hereby returned."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.09.2021. FAA's order dated 17.09.2021, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating as under:
(i) Shri S. Vijay Gopal Under Secretary to the Govt. of India (Films-I) & CPIO, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Ms. Dhanpreet Kaur, Director (Films-l) & (Films-2) /Appellate Authoriry, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Ms. Indrani Bose, Deputy Director & CPIO, Directorate of Film Festivals and Shri Chaitanya Prasad, Additional Director General / Appellate Authority had provided partial information only without certifying the same as required u/s 20(ii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
(ii) CPIO and First Appellant Authority had not provided the following information Deliberately:5
• The copy of the sanction orders issued by the Ministry under various heads and the expenditure details.
• Full details of domestic/international travel tickets of the guests/address and occupation of each guest whether they are Government employees or Film delegates and photocopy of invitation letter to each guest. • Full details of name of the guests address and occupation of each guest whether they are Government employees or Film delegates and photocopy of invitation letter to each guest.
• Supporting document for the tenders which were floated by DFF as per MoU for • selection of EMA / PR Agency for 49th and 50th edition of IFFI. • Utilization certificates! photocopies of the bills along with sanctioned order issued with the approval of the competent financial authority- including copy of the contract/agreement/job order/supply order/Mou to ascertain whether the • Work/procurement were implemented in a fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective manner in terms of Rule 70 of GFR, 2017 for expenditure by DFF on hiring EMA/PR Agency for 49th and 50th edition of IFFI • Details of audit done for the expenditure incurred for last two editions of IFFI.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent(s): Mohd. Zahid Sharif, CPIO along with Vinod Kumar, Desk Officer, M/o I & B present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated on the same lines as that of the grounds of the Second Appeal and urged that he has not received the complete information from the Respondents.
Mohd. Zahid Sharif, CPIO submitted that the CPIO, DFF is the concerned CPIO in the instant matter and he is not in a position to represent their case. He further informed the bench that DFF has been merged with National Film Development Corporation as on date.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the information provided to the Appellant by the Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 6 27.08.2021 as well as by ESG on 05.10.2021 appears to be sufficing the sheer magnitude of the information sought for by the Appellant in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.
The Commission is not in a position to appreciate the dissatisfaction of the Appellant whereby he expects the CPIO to extrapolate on the information that has been already provided to him by seeking for further records suited to his understanding without being specific at most of the points mentioned in the RTI Application.
The Commission in this regard places reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information.....Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Further, it is pertinent to note that the information sought for regarding the guests at point no.3 of the RTI Application is squarely exempt from disclosure 7 under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it seeks personal information of third parties. For the sake of clarity, the said exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is reproduced as under:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen:
(j) 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 unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:.."
In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is further drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 2010 wherein 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; Girish Ramchandra 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:
"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..."8
Nonetheless, for the remaining points, in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act, the Commission directs Respondent No.2 to offer an opportunity of inspection of the available and relevant records related to the information sought for therein subject to the exemptions of Section 8 of the RTI Act. The said opportunity of inspection of the records shall be offered to the Appellant on a mutually decided date & time and intimation of the same will be provided to the Appellant telephonically and in writing by the Respondents. Copy of documents, if any, desired by the Appellant during the inspection shall be provided against payment of prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012. The said direction shall be complied with by the Respondent(s) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Respondent No.1 shall ensure service of this order to the present address of Respondent No.2 under intimation to the Commission for due compliance of directions contained herein above.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 9