Central Information Commission
Mr. Kishanlal Mittal vs Election Commission Of India on 15 December, 2011
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/000171, 836 & 1046
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 15 December 2011
Date of decision : 15 December 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Kishanlal Mittal,
1305, Dhruv, Ashok Van,
Borivali East, Mumbai - 400 066.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Election Commission of India,
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Avinash Kumar, Under Secretary,
(ii) Shri K.F. Wilfred, Principal Secretary,
(iii) Shri D.K. Varma, Under Secretary,
(iv) Shri Madhusudan Gupta, Section Officer
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard this case through video conferencing. The Appellant was present in the Mumbai studio of the NIC. The Respondents were present in our chamber. We heard their submissions.
3. In two separate RTI applications, the Appellant had sought a variety of information about the functioning of the Central Election Commission including CIC/SM/A/2011/000171, 836 & 1046 details regarding the electronic voting machines, appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners etc. The CPIO had attempted to provide much of the information although in some cases, he had invited the Appellant to inspect the relevant records on the ground that the information was voluminous. The Appellate Authority had, more or less, endorsed the decision of the CPIO while providing, at his level, some further clarification.
4. After carefully considering the submissions made by both the parties and the facts of the case, we think that some additional information should also be provided. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant the following information within 15 working days of receiving this order:
i) the photocopy of the relevant file noting in which the competent authority had decided to procure the electronic voting machines from two Government of India Undertakings and not through the public tender route;
ii) the number of pages of information provided free of charge due to the delay on the part of the CPIO or the holder of the information including the total amount of money, thus, foregone; however, if the relevant case files are no longer available having been weeded out or for any other reason and the computation of the total number of pages of information given free of charge is no longer possible, the CPIO shall clearly state so in his communication;
iii) the photocopy of the enquiry report, if any, to fix responsibility for the delay in providing information and any other file noting recorded by the competent authority in this regard.
5. The Appellant was quite exercised over the fact that the CPIO had not CIC/SM/A/2011/000171, 836 & 1046 provided him any information regarding the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. He argued that if the Election Commission was not aware of the process of the appointment or about the nodal ministry in the government responsible for such appointment, at least, the CPIO should have transferred his RTI application to the President of India who surely was the appointing authority. The Respondents submitted that while the Ministry of Law and Justice happened to be the administrative ministry for the Election Commission, they had no knowledge about the exact authority or the Ministry in the government which might be processing such appointment to the office of the CEC/EC. If that is so, it would have been prudent on the part of the CPIO to have transferred this particular query to the President Secretariat. We direct him to do so now within 10 working days of receiving this order.
6. It is to be noted that the Appellant had also sought to know about the entire correspondence made between the Election Commission and others regarding the electronic voting machines. The CPIO had invited him to visit the Commission to inspect the relevant records since providing the information, in his opinion, would have disproportionately diverted their resources. After carefully considering the contentions of both the parties, we tend to agree with the views of the CPIO. Without any specific timeframe, collating all such correspondence made by people with the Election Commission on the subject for the purpose of providing the details and the copies of the records to the Appellant would indeed disproportionately divert their resources. It is right that the Appellant, if he is so interested, should visit the office of the Election Commission on any mutually convenient date and inspect the relevant records and make notes. We direct the CPIO to write to the Appellant within 20 working CIC/SM/A/2011/000171, 836 & 1046 days of receiving this order to fix a mutually convenient date for such inspection.
7. Three second appeals registered in the CIC stand disposed off by this order.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2011/000171, 836 & 1046