Central Information Commission
Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Noida Special Economic Zone on 30 August, 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/NSEZO/A/2023/600132
Rajesh Kumar Gupta ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The CPIO,
Office of the Development
Commissioner, NSEZ, RTI Cell,
Phase II, Noida-201305,
District Gautam Budh Nagar
Date of Hearing : 28/08/2023
Date of Decision : 28/08/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09/12/2022
CPIO replied on : 21/12/2022
First appeal filed on : 22/12/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 29/12/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Not on Record
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.12.2022 seeking the following information:1
"NSEZ Noida vide its circular File No: DC/NSEZ/2022/WFH/6913 dated 23.08.2022 (copy attached) issued guidelines providing SOP for Work from Home (WFH) permission for implementation of Rule 43A of the SEZ(third amendment) Rules 2022 whereby units located in Noida SEZ were permitted to provide WFH facility to unit employees and submit such request to Noida SEZ. One such unit namely Capgemini Technology Services Ltd is located in Block A Sector 81 NSEZ Noida. Hence, as per guidelines in above circular and ensuring its compliance kindly provide the following information:
a) Whether unit Capgemini Technology Services Ltd located in Noida SEZ has followed the guidelines provided in circular File No: DC/NSEZ/2022/WFH/6913 dated 23.08.2022 issued by NSEZ?
b) Whether unit Capgemini Technology Services Ltd located in Noida SEZ has permitted & provided Work from home facility to its employees as per stated above circular?
c) If yes in above (b), provide the copy of list submitted by unit Capgemini Technology Services Ltd to respective authority of Noida SEZ in which name of such employees were provided or some proof that Capgemini unit has implemented such guidelines.
d) If response is No under (b) above, the reason thereof and action taken by NSEZ to unit Capgemini Technology Services Ltd regarding non-compliance of such circular dated 23.08.2022 for providing WFH facility to employees.
e) Whether the latest amendment done by Ministry of Commerce on 8 Dec 2022 in the stated circular above regarding permitting units operating in SEZ for 100% employees may take WFH facility without notifying to SEZ has been communicated to unit Capgemini Technology Services Ltd located in Noida SEZ. If yes, provide copy of such communication made to and If No, the reason thereof."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.12.2022 stating as under:
"With reference to your query No. a, it is informed that Capgemini Technology Services Ltd. Unit I & Unit III have submitted letters for permission for WFH and the same were approved by the Competent Authority, Noida SEZ, subject to the provisions of the Instruction No. 110 dated 12.08.2022 issued by the Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India. No other information in this regard is available with the undersigned CPIO.2
With reference to your query No. b, it is informed that this is internal matter of the unit & no information is available with the undersigned CPIO and, thus, the information with reference to your query no. c is also Nil.
With reference to your query No. d, it is informed that CPIO can give only the information, which exists or held by the CPIO. CPIO cannot create, interpret or give opinion under RTI Act. You are asking for opinion of CPIO under a specific situation for which he is not authorized under RTI Act.
With reference to your query No. e, it is informed that no such communication was specifically made with Capegemini Technology Services Limited located in Noida SEZ and, therefore, the information is Nil. However, copy of the said notification has been circulated to all SEZ units, SEZ Developers, Co-developers falling under the jurisdiction of Development Commissioner, Noida SEZ on 20.12.2022, which is available in public domain at NSEZ website Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.12.2022. FAA's order dated 29.12.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Kiran Mohan, Deputy DC personally present in the hearing.
The written submissions of the Appellant are taken on record.
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 21.12.2022, complete point- wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant.
The Respondent submitted that the FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Decision:3
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the Respondent and upon perusal of records, observes that the Appellant in his second appeal submitted that he is not satisfied with the response given by the Respondent on his RTI application. The Appellant in his second appeal contended that attested copy of letter for permission for Work from Home (WFH) submitted by Capgemini to the Respondent public authority should be provided to him under the RTI Act.
The Commission is of the considered opinion that the response given by the Respondent on the RTI application of the Appellant is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act. However, the Appellant is aggrieved with non-supply of complete information by the Respondent more specifically copy of permission sought by the Unit Capgemini from the Respondent Public Authority w.r.t Work from Home facility given to the employees.
In light of the above, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-visit the contents of impugned RTI application and provide a revised reply along with copy of letter for permission for Work from Home (WFH) submitted by Capgemini to the Respondent public authority, as per the documents available on record. In doing so, the CPIO is at liberty to invoke Section 10 of the RTI Act for redacting the information related to the personal information of third parties which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, as the said provision (Section 10 of the Act) states as under:
10. Severability.--
(1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information. The information as directed above shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5