Central Information Commission
Pritam Bhattacharya vs Indian Army on 3 October, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DPTMA/C/2023/655535
CIC/IARMY/C/2023/656519
CIC/IARMY/A/2024/602892
Pritam Bhattacharya ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
.....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
536 SS and TC, Project Sampark, Rajouri,
Jammu and Kashmir - 185131.
PIO,
Officer Commanding, 536 SS &
TC of Project Sampark, GREF,
C/O 56 APO, Pin 930536.
PIO,
Presiding officer @ officer Commanding
& CPIO, 536 SS & TC of Project Sampark
(GREF), C/O 56 APO, Pin 930536 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.09.2024
Date of Decision : 30.09.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned complaints and appeal have been clubbed together for
disposal through common order as these are based on same RTI application
Page 1 of 10
of the same applicant seeking information from the same Respondent Public
Authority.
Relevant facts emerging from complaint and appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.10.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 11.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.12.2023, 19.01.2024
Information sought:
The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.10.2023 seeking the following information:
1. Please supply me the following information through speed post at my residential address a. Convening order No 15001/CO/204/E1C dated 26 Jun 2023 of HQ 31 BRTF (GREF).
b. Present status of the Court of Inquiry i.c.w. CO No 15001/CO/204/E1C dt. 26/6/23 of 31 BRTF.
c. Papers submitted by the officials of 1052 Fd Wksp before the Presiding Officer @ OC 536 SS&TC i.c.w. convening order No 15001/CO/204/E1C dated 26/6/23 of HQ 31 BRTF (GREF).
d. Letters issued from Presiding Officer @ OC 536 SS&TC before the concerned complainant and public authorities, West Bengal i.c.w. CO No 15001/CO/204/E1C dated 26/6/2023.
e. Responses received by the Presiding Officer @ OC 536 SS&TC from concerned complainant and public authorities, West Bengal i.c.w. CO No 15001/CO/204/E1C dated 26/6/2023.
f. Letter no 14012/31TF/PB/04/E1E dated 15/6/2023 of HQ CE(P) Sampark GREF (if available).
Having not received any received any response from the CPIO, the complainant/appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.11.2023. The FAA's order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant/appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaints and Second Appeal.
Page 2 of 10Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Complainant/Appellant: Present along with Mr. Bikas Kar Gupta, Advocate present in person.
Respondent: Mr. R Vijay Raju, Sr. Adm. Offr./PIO, project Sampark, Jammu present through video-conference.
Complainant/Appellant contended that no information has been provided to him till date. He further challenged the action of Respondent Public Authority by alleging that empty envelopes were send to him in the form of replies which is not a valid response. He further claimed that despite order of Hon'ble High Court for resuming his services with immediate effect, the respondent organization has failed to adhere to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, it was challenged by the appellant by filing contempt petition. He prayed the Commission to grant time to file a detailed written submission incorporating the factual background and chain of events pertaining to his case, which was allowed by the bench.
A written submission dated 09.09.2024 filed by the appellant/complainant in case File No. CIC/IARMY/A/2024/602892 claiming award for compensation for alleged non-receipt of information is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:-
"Written Submission i.c.w. hearing dated 18/9/2023 with humble prayer before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner to (1) Impose maximum penalty on respondents & recommend disciplinary actions against them u/s 18, 20(1), 20(2) as the information denied malafidely and intentionally by them @ white collar crime from their part to safeguard dealing officers. (2) Pay me compensation Rs. one crore from them u/s 19/8(b) to compensate my losses, mental agony, harassments, damages and other expenditures. (3) Provide me point wise, clear, cogent information [authentic document] u/s 7/6, 22, 24/1 of the RTI Act duly certified at foot by the respondents and/or by an affidavit from the respondents stating that information @ authentic document as sought already destroyed by them, so not available in their office record Sir, Page 3 of 10
1. I am submitting this with humble prayers u/s 6, 7/6, 18, 19/8(b), 20, 22, 24/1 of the RTI Act pl.
2. That to enforce my fundamental rights, application and appeal under the RTI Act, 2005 submitted before the CPIO and FAA whereas upto today, respondents not provided me point wise, clear, cogent information [authentic documents] being professional to mislead Commission & Court
3. On this scenario self-explanatory orders of the Supreme Court & High Courts :-
a. A Judge also presides to see that guilty man does not escape. b. Ultimate object of the legal system is to punish the guilty and protect the innocent, duly pay compensation before victim from guilty. c. Forgery, criminal conspiracy, cheating & taking gratification can't be a part of official discharge of duty of public authority. d. State machinery being misused for ulterior motives and for causing harassment to the other side, we are thus inclined to impose cost on respondent to compensate the appellant.
e. Ultimate object of the legal system is to punish the guilty and protect the innocent, duly pay compensation before victim from guilty.
1. The Court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed and brought into force. It seeks to foster an openness culture among state agencies and a wider section of public authorities whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for,..
they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust & functioning democracy............................Mujibur Rehman Vs CIC
2. g. The object of the RTI Act is to ensure transparency in the functioning of the Departments and this cannot be thwarted by the Government on ground that voluminous information is being sought and therefore the information can not be provided. The Government also cannot deny information on the ground that it will take time to collect the information. In view of the above, this court is inclined to a direction to the petitioner to provide the information sought for by the respondent....Govt. of NCT Delhi Vs PS Dhillon Page 4 of 10
5. Prayer before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner to a. Impose maximum penalty on respondents and recommend disciplinary actions against them u/s 18, 20(1), 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the information denied malafidely and intentionally by them to safeguard their dealing officers @ white collar crime by their part. b. Pay me compensation Rs. one crore from respondents u/s 19/8(b) of the RTI Act 2005 to compensate my losses, mental agony, harassments, damages, all expenditures.
c. Provide me point wise, clear, cogent information [authentic document] u/s 7/6, 22, 24/1 of the RTI Act duly certified at foot by the respondents and/or by an affidavit from the respondents stating that the information @ authentic document as sought not available in their office record.
Respondent initially claimed that hearing notice of present files were not received in their office, therefore, he prayed the Commission to grant some time to locate the file and intimate the factual position in the matter through written submission. Permission granted by the Commission.
A reply dated 18.12.2023 has been enclosed by the PIO in case File No. CIC/IARMY/C/2023/656519 wherein it was stated as under -
2. Firstly, It is to inform you that BRO being subordinate and executive arm of Border Roads Development Board, which is included in 2nd Schedule of RTI Act 2005, and thus exempted from its operation under Section 24 except in the cases of human rights violation and allegation of corruption. Your instant application neither attracts allegation of corruption nor violation of Human Rights.
3. Secondly, as per Sec 6 of RTI Act 2005 "a person who desires to obtain any information under RTI Act 2005, shall make a request in writing or through electronic media to the Central Public Information Officer or Central Assistance Public Information Officer", as the case may be, whereas you have submitted application addressed to Presiding Officer, OC 536 SS &TC & CPIO.
4. However, the following available information is furnished below:-
Para (a): It is intimated that HQ 31 BRTF Convening Order No. 15001/CO/204/E1C dated 26 Jun 2023 has already been given to you vide Col Page 5 of 10 Sandeep Maindolia, PO, OC 536 SS &TC letter No. CF/GS-185499X/17/E5 dated 26 Jul 2023. However, the same is again enclosed herewith.
Para (b): Court of Inquiry is in progress.
Para (c) to (e): As per the policy of RTI Act 2005, the information which is available in materials form with the PIO can be furnished to the information seeker and there is no scope in RTI Act to compile or to collate or to create any information.
Para (f): It is intimated that nature of HQ CE (P) Sampark letter No. 14012/31TF/PB/04/E1E dated 16 Jun 2023 is confidential. Hence, the same cannot be provided by PIΟ.
Subsequently, a written submission dated 26.09.2024 in case File No. CIC/DPTMA/C/2023/655535 has been filed by the Respondent, which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for the sake of clarity:
SUBMISSION OF BRIEF OF RESPONDENT BY GPIO 636 SS&TC(GREF)
1. Reference you good office file No. CIG/OPTIMA/C/2023/655535 dated 30 Aug 2024 received by this unit on 19 Sep 2024 (A4) through 679 Field Post Office, C/o 56 Army Post Office 530 55&TC(Respondents office) is located at Rajoun (18) being insurgency area and due to security reasons all Dak and Registered is being collected by this unit from 679 FPO twice in a work. As a result the said notice was received in respondents office on 19 Sep 2024(AN) through Field Post Office and further in this HQ through HQ 31 BRTF on 25 Sep 2025 which is after the hearing date i.e 18-09-2024 at 12:05 PM. Therefore, the respondent in above notices could not attend the hearing on above mentioned date and time.
2 Further, it is also submitted that Border Roads Organisation (BRO) being subordinate and executive arm of Border Roads Development Bonard (BRDB) which is scheduled in 2 Schedule of RTI Act 2005 and thus is exempted from its operation under Section 24 except cases of human rights violation and allegation of corruption vide Govt of India, Border Roads Development Board letter No. F/06/280/BRDB/Admin-2005 dated 02 Mar 2000.
3.The applicant/appellant Shri Pritam Bhattacharya had submitted his RTI application dated 04 Oct 2023 addressed to The Presiding Officer le Col Sandeep Maindolia OC 536 SS &TC Project Sampark and same was booked on 20 Oct 2023 and received by this unit on 30 Oct 2023 through Postal Page 6 of 10 Order No. 53F-650671/Speed post vide RL No. RP886867171IN. (Copy of envelope atid as Annex-1). The CPID Project Sampark vide letter No. 13000/RTI/PB/42/RTI Cell dated 18 Dec 2023 had already furnished the reply to the applicant (Copy attd as Annex-II).
4. It is submitted that Officer Commanding 536 5S&TC(GREF) is Presiding Officer of Court of Inquiry regarding plural marriage by Shri Pritam Bhattacharya against compliant filed by Smt Amrita Bhattacharya and Court of Inquiry convey vide HQ 31 BRTF Convening Order No. 15001/CO/204/E1C dated 26 Jun 2023 and the Officer is not CPIO, whereas applicant submitted RTI application addressed to The Presiding Officer Officer Commanding & CPIO 536 SS&TC(GREF). 536 SS&TC (GREF) is under command of HQ CE (P) Sampark. Shri Pritam Bhattacharya should have sent the RTI application addressed CPIO Project Sampark instead of Presiding Officer OC 530 SS&TC for furnish reply under RTI Act.
6. The appeal dated 11 Nov 2023 filed by Shri Pritam Bhattacharya has not been received by this officer.
6. Further, the applicant has asked the information related to service matter. In this regard, attention is invited to the CIC Order No. CIC/CC/A/2015/002300 dated 23 Sep 2016 wherein it is held that" applicant should not approach to CPIO/FAA/CIC under RTI Act for service related info unless, it is a case of violation of human rights and/or allegation of corruption."
SUBMISSION BEFORE CIC
7. It is submitted that Border Roads Organisation (BRO) subordinate and executive arm of Border Roads Development Board (BRDB) which is scheduled in 2t Schedule of RTI Act 2005 and thus is exempted from its operation under Section24 except cases of human rights violation and allegation of corruption. However, reply has already been furnished by CPIO Project Sampark vide their letter No. 13000/RTI/PB/42/RTI Coll dated 18 Dec 2023(Copy attd).
8. Hon'ble CIC decision No. CIC/CC/A/2015/002300 dated 23 Sep 2016 wherein it is held that" applicant should not approach to CPIO/FAA/CIC under RTI Act for service related info unless, it is a case of violation of human rights and/or allegation of corruption". Hence relevance of Page 7 of 10 approaching CPIO/FAA/CIC under RTI Act in instant case for service related information and as elaborated above may please be ascertained by Hon'ble CIC.
9. It is also being submitted that applicant Shri Pritam Bhattacharya is repeatedly asking similar information from the department through multiple RTIs and individual applications addressed to different officers through emails & registered post. The reply of all RTIs and individual applications are being served to applicant on each occasion by the department in time bound manner. Due to this repeated and multiple RTI applications by the applicant, the precious time of the Department (Defence) is being consumed in furnishing repeated replies to the individual instead of focusing on necessary work of national importance in strategic Border Areas.
PRAYER
10. Further since RTI application dated 04 Oct 2023 of the individual have been considered by the CPIO of HQ CE (P) Sampark and respective reply has been furnished to the applicant within the purview of RTI Act, therefore, it is prayer that complaint filed by the applicant Shri Pritam Bhattacharya may kindly be disposed of accordingly.
Decision At the outset, the Commission without going into the merits of maintainability or otherwise of more than one complaint/second appeal on a single RTI application by the complainant/appellant, has considered the issue on merit and accordingly, clubbed all the instant matters for disposal through common order.
Further, the Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records notes that in the instant matter CPIO has provided a reply vide letter dated 18.12.2023 as per the RTI Act, despite being an organization exempted under Section 24 of the RTI Act in good faith and with all bona fide intent. Complainant/Appellant has wilfully suppressed this vital fact with the Commission to make out a serious case of non-response. It Page 8 of 10 depicts that he has not approached the Commission with clean hands, which is not appreciated.
Further, case File No. CIC/DPTMA/C/2023/655535 CIC/IARMY/C/2023/656519 is a complaint filed under Section 18(2) the RTI Act where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011 : AIR 2012 SC 864.
The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon perusal of the facts on record and submissions of the Respondent the Commission finds that an appropriate and timely reply has been given by the Respondent vide letter dated 18.12.2023. No mala-fide is established on part of the CPIO in this case. Hence, intervention of the Commission is not required in the matter.
Nonetheless, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of his written submission dated 26.09.2024 along with enclosures free of charge to the complainant/appellant through email and via speed post within one week from the date of receipt of this order.
As regards the claim of compensation filed by the complainant/appellant on 09.09.2024, it is noted that the CPIO has provided appropriate reply within the prescribed time limit despite being an organization exempted under Section 24 of the RTI Act. Moreover, no arguments/evidence has been filed by the appellant/complainant seeking to invoke the proviso below Section 24 of the RTI Act. There is no mala fide established on the part of CPIO. Further, it is noted that complainant/appellant has not given any proof of service of complaint/appeal on the Respondent CPIO which could establish his interest in seeking the information as per the RTI Act rather than preparing grounds for claiming compensation. It is an established process to serve a copy on opposite party for any document being filed before Adjudicating Body/Forum/Authority/Court, etc. Even copy of the claim for compensation Page 9 of 10 has not been served on the Respondent Public Authority. The Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that he has been in litigation with the Respondent public authority and thus, is well aware of the basic requirement and necessity of serving copy of documents to the opposite party. Thus, his bona fide for entitlement to compensation has not been established ab-initio let alone it being established beyond any reasonable doubt. Further, since reply by the respondent CPIO was furnished within time limit, there is no ground left for considering his request for the same.
Notwithstanding the above, the conduct of the complainant/appellant is severely admonished because he did not bother to file written submission enumerating sequence of events and factual background in these matters despite having prayed for the same before the bench.
With these observations, the instant complaints and appeal are disposed of.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, NA 536 SS and TC, Project Sampark, Rajouri, Jammu and Kashmir 185131.
Copy To:
The FAA, 536 SS & TC of Project Sampark (GREF), C/O 56 APO, Pin 930536.Page 10 of 10
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)