Central Information Commission
Ajit Kumar Roy vs Inland Waterways Authority Of India, ... on 30 October, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal Nos. CIC/YA/A/2015/000126/MP, CIC/YA/A/2016/1320/MP,
CIC/YA/A/2016/001321/MP,CIC/YA/A/2016/001322/MP, CIC/YA/A/2016/001323/MP,
CIC/YA/A/2016/001324/MP, CIC/YA/A/2016/001325/MP, CIC/YA/A/2016/001326/MP,
CIC/YA/A/2016/001327/MP, CIC/YA/A/2016/001328/MP, CIC/YA/A/2016/001340/MP,
CIC/YA/A/2016/001341/MP, CIC/YA/A/2016/001342/MP, CIC/YA/A/2016/001343/MP,
CIC/YA/A/2016/001344/MP, CIC/YA/A/2016/001345/MP, CIC/YA/A/2015/000369/MP,
CIC/YA/A/2015/001691/MP, CIC/YA/A/2016/001347/MP, CIC/YA/A/2016/001348/MP,
CIC/YA/A/2016/001609/MP, CIC/YA/A/2016/001769/MP, CIC/YA/A/2015/000127/MP,
CIC/YA/A/2015/000128/MP, CIC/YA/A/2015/000129/MP, CIC/YA/A/2015/000130/MP,
CIC/YA/A/2015/000131/MP, CIC/YA/A/2015/000134/MP, CIC/YA/A/2015/000149/MP,
CIC/YA/A/2015/000150/MP, CIC/YA/A/2015/000151/MP, CIC/YA/A/2015/002168/MP,
CIC/YA/A/2015/001585/MP, CIC/YA/A/2015/001355/MP, CIC/YA/A/2015/000550//DSHIP/MP.
CIC/YA/A/2015/000972/MP, CIC/YA/A/2015/001651/MP, CIC/YA/A/2015/001652/MP,
CIC/YA/A/2015/001653/MP, CIC/YA/A/2015/001689/MP, CIC/YA/A/2015/001690/MP, ,
CIC/YA/A/2015/001692/MP
Appellant : Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, Allahabad.
Public Authority: Inland Waterways Authority of India, Noida, Patna
& Kolkata.
Date of Hearing : 17th July, 2017.
Date of Decision : 30th October, 2017
Present :
Appellant : Not present
Respondent : Shri U.K. Sahai, Assistant Secretary, IWAI, Noida,
Shri A.K. Mishra, Director, IWAI, Patna & Shri L.K.
Razak, Director, IWAI, Kolkata at CIC.
ORDER
The Commission heard the forty two second appeals filed by Shri Ajit Kumar Roy. The appellant vide letter dated 10.07.2017 expressed his inability to attending the hearing at Commission's office and requested the Commission to provide him an opportunity for hearing all the appeals through VC. The appellant was contacted on phone and provided him an opportunity to hear the appellant through VC at NIC, Allahabad. In spite of this the appellant was not present.
1No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000126/MP 1.1 Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 5.6.2014, sought to have the detailed list of request transfers from head office to field offices and vice versa as well as stay of transfers on request w.e.f. 1999 to till date in respect of group A, B, C and D including the cases of promotional transfer and later request considered for posting back at IWAI, Noida and other offices availing promoted post, with proof.
1.2 The CPIO, on receipt of payment of Rs. 32/- as photocopying charges for 16 pages, provided the information/documents as desired by the appellant vide letter dated 25.8.2014. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority, vide his first appeal dated 13.09.2014, stating that the CPIO had sent the list of entire IWAI staff giving name, designation, GP and places of their postings which was not sought for and further stated that the list provided was also not updated and corrected. The FAA, vide his order dated 20.10.2014, intimated the appellant that the information required was not in a single file but in different personal/establishment files and it would be waste of resources to compile the same and offered the appellant a visit to their office inspecting the files on the subject after fixing a mutually convenient time. Not satisfied with the FAA's decision, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that CPIO was deliberately delaying and trying to conceal the information and FAA was not disposing the appeal within time without informing the reason of delay and that inviting for inspection was a kind of denial of information.
1.3 The respondents stated that the appellant had sought information on transfers from head office to field offices and vice versa as well and stay of transfers of request w.e.f. 1999 till the date of his filing of his RTI application. Therefore, he had sought information spanning over almost 15 years and the CPIO had already provided 16 pages of documents and had also offered an opportunity for inspection of records. The information sought by the appellant was scattered in various files and it was very difficult and time consuming to segregate relevant files to cull out the information sought by the appellant. Therefore, they had also offered an opportunity to the appellant for inspection. Moreover, the CPIO had responded within the stipulated period of one month as provided under the RTI Act.
1.4 On hearing the respondents and going through the available record, the Commission observes that the appellant had indeed sought voluminous information, yet the CPIO had tried to provide some information to him and also offered an inspection of the record in question. The Commission, therefore, finds no merit in the contentions of the appellant that the information was available but not provided to him. As mentioned in the preceding para, the information sought was for 15 long years and it was not available in consolidated form. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 has held as under:
2"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 Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. 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.
1.5 In view of the above, the Commission upholds the decision of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/YA/A/2016/001320/MP 2.1 The appellant, vide his RTI application dated 15.7.2015, sought the copies of seniority list issued since 1993 in respect of UDCs of IWAI including current seniority list.
2.2 On receipt of the requisite fee, the CPIO provided the requisite information containing 9 pages vide his response dated 12.8.2015. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority stating that the seniority list provided did not include the names of certain officials who were working as UDC for long and also contained names of those officials who have since retired and hence the information provided was incomplete and requested for the requisite information. The FAA, vide his order dated 30.9.2015, intimated the appellant that the current seniority list would be published shortly and the other discrepancies pointed out by the appellant were regarding the promotions/retirement subsequent to the publication of the list, which were maintained in the files and also offered him inspection of the relevant record after fixing convenient date. Not quite satisfied with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that since he was posted at the Chennai office, he would have to spend lot of money as well as leave to visit Noida office which reflected harassment/concealment and requested for information which was required for a court case pending in Allahabad High Court.
2.3. The respondents stated that they had provided nine pages of documents along with an opportunity to inspect the documents that were available and further added that they had provided the seniority lists in respect of UDCs from 1992 onwards. The organisation was established in 1996 and the first seniority was published in 1992. The list was maintained for RO and HO both, therefore, certain names may not figure in the HO list or RO list. However, in 1998, a combined seniority list was issued which was 3 also made available to the appellant. Ad regards the current seniority list, it was yet to be published at the time of responding to the appellant.
2.4. The Commission observes that the CPIO had provided the information available with them. The appellant appears to have expanded the scope of his RTI application while adding that in case the seniority list of UDCs was not issued "a declaration may be provided for such a blunder". He had not sought any reasons for non issue of seniority list in a particulars year. The Commission, therefore, upholds the decision of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/YA/2016/001321/MP 3.1. Vide his RTI application dated 6.6.2015, the appellant sought seniority list of Supervisor/TA/AD/JHS and AHS of IWAI since 1988 till date.
3.2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the appellant approached the first appellate authority, vide his appeal dated 13.7.2015, stating that no information had been provided to him and requested for the desired information. In the mean while, the CPIO provided the information comprising of 12 pages, vide his letter dated 21.7.2015, on receipt of payment of Rs. 24/- towards photocopying charges. The FAA disposed of the matter intimating the appellant that the CPIO had already provided the information. Aggrieved with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that CPIO had provided incomplete, incorrect and delayed information and requested for compensation and penalty on the CPIO u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
3.3. The respondents stated that the appellant had sought seniority lists of five cadres from 1988 till the date of his filing the RTI application and the CPIO had provided 12 pages and provided an opportunity for inspection for the rest of the information. The FAA had also held that as certain changes had taken place in the seniority list due to promotion, retirement, death, etc., therefore, it had to be updated but the information was available in different files. The appellant could visit and peruse the relevant files. The final list could only be uploaded after making necessary corrections. The respondents further added that the seniority lists were not published every year and before finalisation, the seniority list is circulated internally to invite objections, if any, to prepare the final list.
3.4. The Commission observes that the CPIO/FAA had provided information obtaining at the time of the appellant's RTI application/first appeal. The Commission, therefore, upholds the FAA's decision. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/YA/2016/001322/MP 4.1. The appellant, vide his RTI application dated 27.7.2015, sought the seniority list of Field Assistants of IWAI since 1992 till date.
44.2. The CPIO, vide his response dated 20.8.2015, informed that he had enclosed the required information. The appellant, however, was not satisfied and approached the first appellate authority stating that the seniority list contained the names of those who had already become JHS whereas the current seniority list had not been provided. The FAA held that the CPIO had provided the available information to the appellant already and that all the seniority lists had been put on the website. Not satisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the current seniority list had not been provided to him intentionally and he had not submitted any appeal on 27.7.2015 as disposed by AA.
4.3. The respondents stated that they had provided the information as available at the time of responding to the RTI application and FAA had also informed that the seniority list had been uploaded on the website. As regards the appellant's contention that he had not submitted any appeal as stated and disposed by AA, the FAA had referred to the instant RTI application dated 27.7.2015 asking for details of seniority list from 1992- 2002 and from 2003 till date and had not referred to any appeal dated 27.7.2015.
4.4. On hearing the respondents and perusing the available record, the Commission holds that the respondent authority had provided the information as available with them. The Commission does not find any reason to intervene in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/YA/2016/001323/MP 5.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, sought the names and designations of officers/officials and contract persons working at sub-offices of IWAI at Allahabad, Varanasi, Bhagalpur, Farraka, Swroopgan, Dibrugarh, Dhubri, Kollam and Haldia (9 stations), vide his RTI application dated 6.6.2015 5.2. The CPIO, vide his reply dated 31.7.2015, informed the appellant that his RTI application had been received on 19.6.2015 and gave him the names of officials/workers, regular, daily wagers and contract workers along with designation with regard to Varanasi, Allahabad and Bhagalpur sub offices. Not having received any reply from the CPIO, the appellant had already moved his appeal before the first appellate authority alleging delay and that the CPIO, IWAI, Patna had not provided the information sought by him. The FAA observed that the only complaint the appellant had was delay in reply. He also mentioned that the appellant had become habitual of sending RTI applications on small issues. The Central Information Commission also, in a previous occasion, had observed, in view of the submissions of the respondents that the appellant had filed around 199 RTI applications from 2009 onwards and public authority had already spent large number of man hours in furnishing the information to the appellant, impinging upon the scarce resources of the public authority. The FAA also warned the appellant to refrain from making unnecessary appeals. Not satisfied with the FAA response, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission reiterating the delay as well as transfer of his RTI application. He also added that instead of disposing of his first appeal, the FAA had issued a warning and also that the FAA had 5 mentioned the date of the RTI as 5.6.2015 whereas he had not sent any application on that date.
5.3. The respondents stated that each of the regions had their own separate PIOs and the appellant could have sought the information from the PIOs concerned. As they had collected information from several PIOs, the reply got slightly delayed. They had already intimated the appellant that they had received the RTI application on 19.6.2015 and had replied to him vide their letter dated 31.7.2015. Though there was some delay but it was on account of their having to collect the information. The FAA had only given his observation in his decision which was based on facts and had not issued any warning in his adjudication of the first appeal. The respondents added that they sincerely regretted the delay and assured to see that the RTI applications are responded within the prescribed time limit.
5.4. On going through the available record and hearing the respondents, the Commission finds that there has been some delay in responding to the RTI application. the Commission, however, condones the delay in view of the position that the CPIO had to collect information from various offices as the appellant had not addressed his RTI application to the CPIOs concerned. The appellant is advised to send his RTI applications to the CPIOs concerned in future. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/YA/2016/001324/MP 6.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, sought information regarding Chinar Shipping & Trading Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai with the date of removal from contract with proof; names of the dredgers with crew, total dredged quantity, water level depth before and after dredging, supervising officer posted during dredging period and total payment made from 2011 till 2014 in tabulation chart with total running hours of each dredger, through his RTI application dated 26.3.2015.
6.2. The CPIO, vide his reply dated 25.4.2015, intimated the appellant that M/s Chinar Shipping & Infrastructure (India) Pvt Ltd was awarded contract under the jurisdiction of RO, Patna on different schedules and contract period as per the tender agreement and added that it was not clear as to the contract about which the information was being sought and the kind of proof that was required. The CPIO also added that the information was being sought for four years and was voluminous and requested the appellant to inspect the relevant file on a mutually agreed date. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority stating that the information sought was very clear and it was asked for three years, therefore, what was requested was a kind of statement of three years for the information sought by him. The FAA held that the PIO, Patna had responded correctly. Not quite satisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the PIO, Patna had made contradictory statements as he said it was not clear as to which contract or proof was sought and that the information sought was voluminous and scattered in many files. 6.3. The respondents stated that the appellant had sought information about the contract awarded to M/s Chinar Shipping & Infrastructure (India) Pvt Ltd and the 6 dredging work performed by them. The contract had been awarded for three years. Since the appellant had sought information in a tabulated form, it was not available with them in the form sought and was scattered in various files.
6.4. On hearing the respondents and going through the available record, the Commission observes that the appellant had sought information on names of dredgers, crew posted along with destinations, places/station, total dredged quantity, water level depth before and after dredging, supervising officer and total payment made along with total running hours for each dredger, in a tabulated chart. The information sought is at least for three years as stated by the appellant in his appeal and it certainly appears to be voluminous and is not available with the respondents in a tabulated form as sought by the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 has held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses (f) and
(j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act.
But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant....."
6.5. The respondents had appropriately asked the appellant to visit their office and see the record. The Commission, therefore, upholds the response of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/YA/2016/001325/MP 7.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 10.4.2015, sought "only passed copy of transfer TA bill (Chennai) and current hometown LTC bill.
7.2. The CPIO, vide letter dated 29.4.2015, sought clarification as to whose TA/LTC bills were being asked for and asked the appellant to seek specific information. The appellant intimated the CPIO that he required the TA and LTC bills in his own case which included the first TTA bill against advance drawn of Rs. 2920/- (Greater Noida to Chennai), second TTA bill against advance drawn of Rs. 70,000/- (Greater Noida to Chennai) for self/family and house hold goods transportation and current hometown LTC bill from Chennai to Allahabad against the advance drawn of Rs. 9,000/- for self and family. He also approached the first appellate authority intimating that he had clarified the position regarding the information sought but the information sought had not been provided to him with regard to TTA bill against advance of Rs. 70,000/- and LTC bill against advance of Rs. 9,000/- referring to a letter dated 8.5.2015 sent by him. The 7 FAA, however, directed the appellant to clarify if the information sought related to him, vide his order dated 29.6.2015. After the FAA's order, the appellant sent a letter dated 4.7.2015 enclosing the letter stated by the appellant to be dated 8.5.2015. Not satisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that he had asked for only passed copy of TTA and hometown LTC bills which was only of 6 pages costing Rs.12/- whereas the CPIO demanded Rs. 48/-. He should, therefore, be compensated for delay and harassment.
7.3. The respondents stated that they had not provided the information in the first instance as it was not clear as to whether the appellant was seeking copies of his own TTA and LTC bills that had been passed. They had received the clarification only through his letter dated 4.7.2015 and, therefore, they had intimated the appellant to pay Rs. 48/- for information contained in 24 pages. They had not received his letter dated 8.5.2015 before.
7.4. On hearing the respondents and going through available record, the Commission finds that the respondents had offered to provide the documents sought by the appellant on payment of Rs. 48/- whereas the appellant stated that the documents sought by him were available only in 6 pages. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to check the correct number of pages of TTA and LTC bills passed, in question, and refund the amount charged in excess, if any, for the documents that had not been asked for by the appellant within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The Commission also advises them to ensure that only those documents are given that are specifically asked for in future.
No. CIC/YA/2016/001326/MP 8.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 13.7.2015, sought the copy of directives of the appellate authority, IWAI, Noida, issued to Director, IWAI, Kolkata, for recovery of wages "for the absent days in the matter of Asian Security Services, Kolkata along with copy of cash book/voucher as proof for confirming compliance of the above directives".
8.2. The CPIO, Noida transferred the RTI application u/s 6(3) to PIO, Kolkata as the matter related to that office. The respondent authority, vide letter dated 23.7.2015, asked the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 6/- towards photocopying charges. On the appellant sending an IPO worth Rs. 6/-, the CPIO provided the copy of voucher passed for recovery/deduction made for the period of absence and that their office had not received any directive from IWAI for recoveries to be made, vide letter dated 10.8.2015. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority stating that he had asked for a copy of cash book which had not been given but copy of note sheet and journal voucher had been provided, therefore, there was delay and incomplete information had been provided. The FAA, on reviewing the case, found that the CPIO had provided the information available with him. Not satisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission as he had not been provided copy of the 8 directive and the copy of cash book but he was asked to come and meet the PIO for clarification. He also asked for delay in making second appeal to be condoned.
8.3. The respondents stated that the appellant was seeking information about the recovery/deduction of wage for the absence of security guard. They had provided him the vouchers as available and had clearly informed the appellant no directives were received from the appellate authority, IWAI, Noida.
8.4. The Commission observes that the respondent authority has provided the information that was available with them and had reverted to the appellant within the stipulated period of one month. No intervention is, therefore, called for in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/YA/2016/001327/MP 9.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, vide his RTI application dated 6.6.2015, sought the closure and opening time of offices in Allahabad, Varanasi and Balia from 1987, with proof.
9.2. The CPIO, vide his response dated 31.7.2015, provided the appellant information regarding the period the three offices at Allahabad, Varanasi and Balia were not in position while intimating that Varanasi and Allahabad were working at present. The CPIO, however, stated that it was not clear as to the kind of proof the appellant had sought for. Not satisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority stating that the information sought was available with the original department and therefore, the RTI application should not have been transferred. The IWAI offices were opened and closed with the order of the head office at Noida as such the information sought should have been provided by the head office at Noida itself. The transfer of his RTI application resulted in delay and incomplete information had been provided. He added that order for closure and reopening of Varanasi office issued by Noida office had not been provided. The FAA, vide his order dated 16.9.2015, held that the information as sought had been provided. Further, the transfer of application was correct as PIO, Patna had the information. Not satisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that there was delay in responding to his RTI application. Besides, the proof sought by him had also not been given.
9.3. The respondents stated that they had provided the available information regarding the opening and closing of the offices. However, as regards proof as sought by the appellant, the appellant had not clarified as to what he wanted in the shape of proof. On the Commission asking them to provide the copies of orders for closing and opening of offices, as available, the respondents stated that they will check the availability of these orders and will provide the same, if available.
9.4. On hearing the respondents and going through the available record, the Commission finds that the CPIO had not given the date of opening of Balia office after October, 2007 and also had not provided the copies of orders for opening and closing of the three offices in question. Further, it is not clear as to why the information regarding 9 opening and closing of offices should not be available with the CPIO, Noida. The Commission, therefore, advises the CPIO to deal with the RTI matters carefully and also directs him to trace out the orders for opening and closing of offices and provide the same, if available, within 15 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/YA/2016/001328/MP 10.1. The appellant, vide his RTI application dated 4.7.2015, sought copy of his RTI application dated 24.1.2015 and copy of appeal on the disposal of first appeal dated 10.4.2015 as per order no. IWAI/Admn/RTI-Comp/2015/418 dated 23.6.2015 (mentioning copy enclosed).
10.2. The CPIO, vide reply dated 31.7.2015, provided the copies of required information. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority stating that the CPIO provided a copy of RTI application dated 24.1.2015 vide his letter dated 31.7.2015 instead of copy of first appeal dated 10.4.2015, copy of letter dated 28.2.2015 was provided. Therefore, incorrect information had been provided to him resulting in delay. The FAA held that the CPIO, Noida had provided the copy of RTI application and appeal submitted by the appellant. Not satisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the information asked for was copy of his RTI application dated 24.1.2015 and copy of appeal on the disposal of first appeal and CPIO had wrongly provided copy of letter dated 28.2.2015.
10.3. The respondents stated that they had provided the copy of the information sought by him.
10.4. The Commission observes that the appellant had in his RTI application had sought two things, (i) "copy of his RTI application dated 24.1.2015 and (ii) copy of appeal on the disposal of first appeal dated 10.4.2015 as per order no. IWAI/Admn/RTI- Comp/2015/418 dated 23.6.2015", even though he mentioned that copies were enclosed, none of the enclosures were sent to the Commission. The CPIO had also not enclosed the particulars of the documents enclosed by him while responding to the RTI application. However, as the appellant stated that instead of his first appeal which was dated 10.4.2015, copy of letter dated 28.2.2015 was provided. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide copy of his first appeal dated 10.4.2015, if available, within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The Commission also advises the appellant to ensure that he keeps his own record properly as the first appeal was made by him and should be available with him. Moreover, the first appeal is not only required for getting the matter adjudicated by the FAA, but would also be required by him in case he intended to make the second appeal. The Commission also notes with concern that the appellant had just mentioned the date of the RTI application and had not even mentioned the subject, therefore, it was not possible to know whether there was one application of the same or a number of applications of the same date and, therefore, there is no way before the Commission to find out whether the RTI application dated 10 24.1.2015 vide which he had asked for copy of letter no. IWAI/VNS/Admn/2014-15/182 dated 12.11.2014 was the same as the one being mentioned in the instant matter.
No. CIC/YA/2016/001340/MP 11.1. Vide his RTI application dated 24.1.2015, the appellant sought the copy of letter no. IWAI/VNS/Admn/2014-15/182 dated 12.11.2014 addressed to Secretary, IWAI, Noida with copy to Director, Patna and PA to Member(F) and Member(T), Noida, issued by Dy Director, IWAI, Varanasi.
11.2. The CPIO transferred the RTI application to CPIO/Director, IWAI, Patna vide letter dated 13.2.2015. The CPIO concerned provided two pages of the required information vide letter dated 12.3.2015. Dissatisfied, the appellant made an appeal dated 30.4.2015 to first appellate authority stating that he had received the information with delay and also that his RTI application should not have been transferred as the information sought was available at Noida office. The FAA does not appear to have adjudicated in the matter. The appellant, therefore, came in appeal before the Commission raising the issue of unnecessarily transfer of his RTI application and delay.
11.3. The respondents stated that the appellant had made the RTI application at their Noida office, whereas the CPIO concerned was stationed at Patna. If the appellant had addressed the correct CPIO, the delay could have been avoided.
11.4. The Commission observes that the RTI application was dated 24.1.2015 and the CPIO transferred it to the CPIO concerned on 13.2.2015 only whereas as per section 6(3), the CPIO is to transfer the RTI application within five days of its receipt. The Commission, therefore, cautions the CPIO and advises him to be careful in future. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/YA/A/2016/001341/MP 12.1. The appellant, vide his RTI application dated 10.4.2015, asked for the name of the official who had been assigned from IWAI to look after the Ministry duty after the relief of Shri Sanjay Mazumdar, Head Clerk and Shri Mohan Singh, Accounting Assistant along with proof.
12.2. Vide his reply dated 10.6.2015, the CPIO enclosed the information sought by the appellant. The appellant, however, made an appeal to the first appellate authority dated 25.6.2015, stating that the CPIO, Noida had made the information available on 15.6.2015 with a delay of 31 days. The FAA held that the CPIO, Noida had replied vide letter dated 10.6.2015 enclosing the letter written to the consultant who had been assigned the work. As the appellant's first appeal was dated 1.6.2016 and the CPIO's reply was 10.6.2015, the FAA directed the CPIO to resend the reply to the appellant. Not satisfied, the appellant approached the Commission stating that his first appeal dated 25.6.2015 had not been adjudicated upon and he should be compensated for the delay on the part of the CPIO.
1112.3. The respondents stated that there had been delay on the part of the CPIO in providing information but the CPIO had provided the information sought. The respondent authority regretted the delay and added that the appellant had been filing far too many applications on very small issues, thus substantial time was spent on responding to the appellant's RTI applications and first appeals which at time got delayed also because of too much pressure of work arising out of the RTI application and appeals sent by him.
12.4. On hearing the respondents and going through the available record, the Commission finds that there is delay in responding to the RTI application on the part of the CPIO. However, looking to the position that the appellant had made 43 RTI applications which had been heard on this date alone, besides the ones already heard and pending, the Commission advises the CPIO and the FAA both to ensure to adhere to the timelines provided in the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/YA/A/2016/001342/MP 13.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 18.4.2015, sought note sheet copies of page 56; direction of Chairman at page 66, document provided by the Secretary regarding O&M contracts of dredgers Encl: 1 and copies of pre-pages related to award of contract for hard strata at a cost of 10,99,53,450/- in respect of M/s Chinar Shipping, Mumbai.
13.2. The CPIO, vide his letter dated 25.5.2015, intimated the appellant that the information sought was not specific as he had mentioned only the page no. of note sheet without citing the specific file number. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority, vide his appeal dated 1.6.2015, stating that the CPIO, Noida had already forwarded the details, i.e. related information in the subject matter and file no. IWAI/PR/1/F-A/Hard Strata/2012-13 was mentioned along with the work order issued on 27.1.2015 to Chinar Shipping and hence, the reply of CPIO was nothing but time consuming and requested that information should be made available to him. The FAA adjudicated in the matter and concurred with the decision of the CPIO. Aggrieved with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating he had clearly clarified the position in his first appeal but the FAA had rejected the same.
13.3. The respondents reiterated that the appellant had not sought specific information in his RTI application as he did not refer to any specific file number and the FAA had also upheld the decision of the CPIO.
13.4. On hearing the respondents and perusing the available records, the Commission observes that the CPIO has appropriately responded in the matter having regard to the fact that the appellant had sought vague information and did not specify the file number when he was in fact, aware of the page number of the file concerned. The CPIO cannot be expected to presume the same and respond. It also appears to be rather surprising that the appellant quoted the exact page numbers of the note sheet, Pg 56 and the 12 direction of the Chairman at Pg 66 and the precise amount of contract for hard strata at a cost of 10,99,53,450/- in respect of M/s Chinar Shipping, Mumbai. The Commission advises the appellant to be specific in seeking information in the future. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/YA/A/2016/001343/MP 14.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 06.06.2015, sought copy of promotion order in respect of Shri SVK Reddy, promoted from AD to DD together with DPC recommendations, vigilance clearance and related copies of note sheets.
14.2. The CPIO, vide his reply dated 30.6.2015, provided the appellant the information sought by him. Dissatisfied, the appellant, vide his appeal dated 13.7.2015, approached the first appellate authority stating that page no. 2, i.e. recommendation of the DPC was not clearly visible and sought neat and visible copy and further sought copy of vigilance clearance report which had not been provided earlier. The FAA adjudicated in the matter and informed the appellant that the page containing the recommendation of the DPC was old and advised the appellant to visit the office to inspect the same and in respect of vigilance clearance, informed the appellant that available information had been already provided to him. Not satisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the FAA had advised him to visit the office which was not logically correct since he was posted at Chennai and copy of the vigilance clearance had also not been provided as originally sought by him.
14.3. The respondents submitted that the CPIO, IWAI Noida, vide letter dated 30.6.2015, had provided the requisite information to the appellant, as per the available records and as sought by him in the RTI application relating to DPC recommendations, DPC minutes and file notings related to DPC regarding the promotion of Shri SVK Reddy.
14.4. On hearing the respondents and perusing the available records, the Commission observes that the CPIO did not apply his mind while responding to the appellant's RTI application and provided personal information of third party which is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the appellant also did not establish involvement of any larger public interest in the matter. On the question of disclosure of DPC minutes/recommendations, the decision of this Commission in the case of Mr. Gopal Kumar vs. Army Headquarters F.No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00069 of 13.7.2006 will apply as directed in the case of Ms. Jyoti Legha vs. UPSC F.No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00185 of 29.9.'07. This decision reads as follows:
"The Departmental Promotion Committees prepare their minutes and make recommendations after examining ACRs of the employees due for promotion. Disclosure of the complete proceedings of DPCs and the grades given by various officers to their subordinates may lead to disclosure of the ACRs. As ACRs are themselves, according to us barred 13 from disclosure, we hold that by inference the DPC proceedings should be similarly barred. However, in all such cases the CPIO and appellate authorities should apply the doctrine of severability, and should provide him the information which can be provided under subsection (2) of Section 10 of the Right to Information Act 2005."
14.5 In view of the above, the Commission, therefore, cautions the CPIO for not keeping the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in view and mechanically passing on the personal information of Shri SVK Reddy, to the appellant and advises him to be careful in future. Further, copy of vigilance clearance report need not be given to the appellant that has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012, dated 3 October 2012] to contain personal information of third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/YA/A/2016/001344/MP 15.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 17.3.2015, sought copy of work order issued to M/s Chinar Shipping, Mumbai for working in NW I in the year 2011 along with the copies of recommendations, note sheets, comparative statement and related details for award of work.
15.2. The CPIO, vide his response dated 22.4.2015, advised the appellant to inspect the documents on 30.4.2015 at their Noida office. The appellant, vide his appeal dated 1.5.2015, approached the first appellate authority stating that he had no interest in inspecting the documents and requested for the information sought. The FAA, vide his order dated 23.6.2015, intimated the appellant that the case was reviewed and similar work was being again put to tender and hence providing complete comparative statement details at that point of time might not be appropriate and advised the appellant to inspect the record on a mutually convenience date. Aggrieved with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the order of the FAA was not correct as tenders for similar work had been already finalized and the work order was issued to M/s Chinar Shipping, Mumbai in January 2015. This confirmed the concealment of information sought and requested the Commission for action u/s 20(1) of the Act for delay as well as concealment of information.
15.3. The respondents submitted that the appellant was asked to inspect the relevant tender documents relating to the work order issued to M/s Chinar Shipping, Mumbai, as he was posted in the same office. They had no intention of hiding any information as was clear from the offer given by them to the appellant for inspection of relevant documents.
1415.4. On hearing the respondents and perusing the available records, the Commission directs the CPIO to give a copy of comparative statements of tender that was finally accepted by IWAI, to the appellant, within a week of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/YA/A/2016/001345/MP 16.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 1.5.2015, sought copies of promotion order, vigilance clearance, DPC recommendation and all the related note sheets regarding the promotion of Shri P.S. Rao, A.D. to the post of D.D..
16.2. The CPIO, vide his letter dated 20.5.2015, advised the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 26/- being the cost of photocopying the information consisting of 13 pages. On receipt of the requisite amount from the appellant, the CPIO, vide his letter 10.6.2015, sent the desired information. Dissatisfied, the appellant, vide his appeal dated 25.6.2015, approached the first appellate authority stating that the information provided did not contain the copy of vigilance clearance and from the documents received by him it was clear that Shri P.S. Rao, AD had not been found clear from vigilance angle. The vigilance clearance had not been granted as an enquiry was pending against him and requested the FAA to provide him the copy of the vigilance clearance. The FAA, vide his order dated 21.7.2015, while disposing of the appeal, stated that the note given from vigilance side was already provided to the appellant by the CPIO. Not quite satisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that though he had been provided the note given by the vigilance, the copy of vigilance clearance certificate granted by the vigilance had not been provided to him and requested for the same.
16.3. The respondents stated that on receipt of the requisite fees from the appellant, the CPIO, IWAI Noida, vide letter dated 10.6.2015, had provided the requisite information to the appellant, as per the records and as sought by him in the RTI application relating to promotion order, vigilance clearance, DPC recommendation and all the related note sheets regarding the promotion of Shri P.S. Rao.
16.4. On hearing the respondents and perusing the available records, the Commission observes that the CPIO did not apply his mind while responding to the appellant's RTI application and provided personal information of third party which is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the appellant also did not establish any larger public interest involved in the matter. In UPSC Vs. R.K. Jain, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in LPA No. 618/2012, has considered the issue of disclosure of information/documents under the provisions of the RTI Act, pertaining to vigilance/ disciplinary proceedings:
"9. The Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande was concerned with disclosure by an employer of information pertaining to the service career of an employee and of details of his assets and liabilities. The information sought comprised of copies of all memos, show cause 15 notices and censure/punishment awarded to the employee from his employer. The Supreme Court held:-
13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the Petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third Respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual."
16.5 On the question of disclosure of DPC minutes/recommendations, the decision of this Commission in the case of Mr. Gopal Kumar vs. Army Headquarters F.No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00069 of 13.7.2006 will apply as directed in the case of Ms. Jyoti Legha vs. UPSC F.No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00185 of 29.9.'07. This decision reads as follows:
"The Departmental Promotion Committees prepare their minutes and make recommendations after examining ACRs of the employees due for promotion. Disclosure of the complete proceedings of DPCs and the grades given by various officers to their subordinates may lead to disclosure of the ACRs. As ACRs are themselves, according to us barred from disclosure, we hold that by inference the DPC proceedings should be similarly barred. However, in all such cases the CPIO and appellate authorities should apply the doctrine of severability, and should provide him the information which can be provided under subsection (2) of Section 10 of the Right to Information Act 2005."
16.6 In view of the above, the Commission, therefore, cautions the CPIO for not keeping the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in view and mechanically passing on the personal information of Shri P.S. Rao, to the appellant and advises him to be careful in future. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000369/MP No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001691/MP 17.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 19.8.2014, sought the legible/visible copies of biometric reports of IWAI (HQ) Noida, for the period November, 2013 to August, 2014.
17.2. The CPIO, on receipt of payment of Rs. 220/- as photocopying charges for 110 pages, provided the information/documents as desired by the appellant vide letter dated 16.9.2014. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the information provided to him by the 16 CPIO, moved his appeal before the first appellate authority alleging that the CPIO had not provided the information for the period for which it was sought in the RTI application while instead of Xerox copies of Biometric report, typed copies printed on 8.10.2014 had been provided to the appellant. Further, September 2014 reports were also provided which had not been asked for in the RTI application. The FAA, vide order dated 24.12.2014, informed that Attendance Report for the period prior to May 2014 could not be retrieved from the system while, the Xerox copies of original attendance report for the period May 2014 to August 2014, as generated by the system on 8.10.2014, had been provided to the appellant. The FAA, however, directed the PIO to refund the amount deposited by the appellant for September 2014 data, accordingly. Aggrieved, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission reiterating the delay as well as for refund of Rs. 44/- as ordered by the FAA, IWAI Noida, by issuing necessary direction to the CPIO, IWAI Noida. He also requested for imposition of penalty on the CPIO for not complying with the FAA's order and for award of compensation to him u/s 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
17.3. The respondents stated that the information as available with them had been already provided to the appellant by the CPIO and the FAA had also upheld the CPIO's decision.
17.4. On going through the available record and hearing the respondents, the Commission finds that the CPIO has provided the available information, as per the records, to the appellant. Under the RTI Act, 2005, a public authority is not supposed to create information for the satisfaction of the applicant but, to provide only the existing and available information, held by it or under its control in the form of any material, data or record. there has been some delay in responding to the RTI application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay has observed as follows:-
"35. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and
(j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analyzed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant."
17.5 The Commission finds that the appellant's first appeal was dated 21.10.2014 and the FAA's order is dated 24.12.2014, i.e. a delay of over a month had been caused in disposing of the first appeal. The Commission, therefore, advises the FAA for the delay and in future to dispose of the first appeal in a time bound manner. These appeals are disposes of.
17No. CIC/YA/2016/001347/MP 18.1. The appellant, vide his RTI application dated 21.5.2015, sought the copy of report/letter dated 28.1.2011 submitted by CBI, Lucknow for pantoon gangway work at Rajghat, Varanasi for joint inspection on 26.8.2010.
18.2. The CPIO, vide his response dated 28.5.2015, informed that the information sought pertained to third party and the third party was being consulted u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant, however, was not satisfied and approached the first appellate authority stating that since the departmental inquiry had already been concluded, the CBI report should have been disclosed by the CPIO and requested the FAA for providing the desired information/document or, in the alternative the CPIO should state if the report could not be provided. The FAA upheld the deacon of the CPIO and further informed that in a similar case the PIO Noida had been instructed by CBI not to part with the report without their concurrence and in the present case, the reply form CBI was awaited. Not satisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the decision of the PIO was malafide and the information requested was being deliberately concealed from the appellant and requested for providing the desired information and imposition of penalty on the CPIO u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
18.4. The respondents reiterated their response that the information sought pertained to third party (CBI, Lucknow in the present case) and the third party had been addressed for their consent to disclose the information to the appellant as the CBI had refused to give the report in a similar RTI application. Further, no response had been received from the CBI, till date.
18.5. On hearing the respondents and perusing the available record, the Commission holds that the respondent authority had appropriately responded in the matter as the holder of the information in the present case was CBI, Lucknow, who treated the information as confidential. Further, the CPIO could not have made any disclosure to the appellant without following the third party procedure as prescribed u/s 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 and as intimated by the CPIO that the consent from CBI was still awaited. However, Section 11(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 clearly states that:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party."
18.6 In view of the above, the Commission remands the appellant's RTI application dated 21.5.2015 to the FAA with a direction to give a final decision to the appellant on 18 revisiting the said RTI application, keeping the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, in view, within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/YA/2016/001348/MP 19.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 15.4.2015, sought copies of letter no. IWAI/Estt./L/10/2014, dated 30.10.2014 and letter no. IWAI/Estt./L/10/2014, dated 3.12.2014, issued by IWAI Noida; copies of letter no. IWAI/KOL/Dir/2014/1264, dated 8.10.2014 and letter no. CSIIPL/IWAI/SCN/L/01/1411/ 2014, dated 14.11.2014; copy of directive of the Appellate Authority, IWAI Noida for recovery of wages for the absent days in the matter of Assam Security, Kolkata along with the copy of relevant page of cash book/voucher as proof of compliance with the aforesaid directive of IWAI Kolkata.
19.2. The CPIO, IWAI Kolkata, vide reply dated 28.4.2015, denied information to the appellant on points 1 & 2 of his RTI application as it was a part of confidential correspondence which was dealt at the Head Office and the CPIO did not find any larger public interest involved in the matter. He further advised the appellant to take up the issue with the PIO, IWAI (HQ) Noida and as far as point 3 of the RTI application was concerned, he advised the appellant to file a separate RTI application seeking the same as it was on a different subject matter. Not satisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority, IWAI Noida, vide his appeal dated 12.5.2015, requesting to provide the desired information on all points of the RTI application. The FAA, vide order dated 2.7.2015, directed the CPIO, IWAI Kolkata, to provide the copies of the letters as sought by the appellant in points 1 & 2 of the RTI application and upheld the decision of the CPIO on point 3. The PIO, IWAI Kolkata, thereafter, advised the appellant to deposit the requisite fee of Rs. 582/- towards photocopying charges so as to enable him to provide the information to the appellant. On receipt of objection towards payment of fees for obtaining the information from the appellant, the FAA directed to allow inspection of the relevant documents to the appellant on a mutually convenient date and time and obtain the information as available with the PIO Kolkata. Aggrieved, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the CPIO had provided delayed information and requested for compensation and penalty on the CPIO u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
19.3. The respondents stated that CPIO, IWAI Kolkata, vide letter dated 10.8.2015, had provided the requisite information to the appellant as sought by him in the RTI application and as directed by the FAA.
19.4. On hearing the respondents and perusing the available records, the Commission holds that the respondent authority had provided the information as available with them on the direction of the FAA. The FAA, however, adjudicated the appellant's first appeal after almost a month's delay and is advised for the future to adjudicate first appeal in a time bound manner. The Commission does not find any further reason to intervene in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.
19No. CIC/YA/A/2016/001609/MP 20.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 4.7.2015, sought the copies of seniority list of LDC's since 1987 in respect of field officers, i.e., NW-I Patna/Kolkata, NW-II Guwahati and NW-III Kochi.
20.2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) provided the information/documents as desired by the appellant vide letter dated 13.7.2015. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority, vide his first appeal dated 18.8.2015, stating that the CPIO incorrectly transferred his RTI application to various field offices knowing that the seniority list of LDCs was common for all IWAI offices and was issued by the head office and therefore, the information was available with IWAI Hqrs., at the first instance. However, the CPIO, IWAI Noida had not provided the seniority list of N.W.I (Patna/Kolkata) as requested by the appellant under the RTI application. The FAA does not appear to have adjudicated in the matter. Aggrieved, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that CPIO was deliberately delaying and trying to conceal the information and FAA also did not dispose of the appeal and requested the Commission to issue necessary directions for disposal of his first appeal.
20.3. The respondents stated that the RTI application received in their office, as per the records, was dated 2.9.2015 in which the appellant had sought copy of letter number 16-IWAI/Estt./1/2015 dated 13.8.2015 and the copy of reply received from the Director, IWAI Kolkata together with the copies of similar letters dated 12.6.2015, 24.6.2015 and 30.7.2015. The respondents gave a copy of the same during the hearing. The respondents stated during the hearing that they were not aware of the RTI application dated 4.7.2015.
20.4. On hearing the respondents and going through the available records, the Commission observes that there had been mismatch of the RTI application with the CPIO, IWAI (HQ) Noida and the one received by the Commission from the appellant. It, therefore, appears that no response had been given to the appellant's RTI application dated 4.7.2015 by the CPIO. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to give information to the appellant on his RTI application dated 4.7.2015, within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/YA/A/2016/001769/MP 21.1. The appellant, vide his RTI application dated 2.9.2015, sought copy of letter number 16-IWAI/Estt./1/2015 dated 13.8.2015 and the copy of reply received from the Director, IWAI Kolkata together with the copies of similar letters dated 12.6.2015, 24.6.2015 and 30.7.2015.
21.2. On receipt of the requisite fee, the CPIO provided the requisite information containing 5 pages vide his response dated 12.10.2015. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority stating that the CPIO did not provide the copy of reply received from Director, IWAI Kolkata as well as, the letter dated 13.8.2015, as 20 enclosed by the CPIO in his reply was "false and/or fabricated" and requested for the requisite information. The appellant also requested to confirm the originality of the letter dated13.8.2015. The FAA, vide his order dated 21.4.2016, directed the PIO to provide the reply received from Director, Kolkata and dismissed the appellant's allegation of 'fabrication' of the letter dated 13.8.2015 as baseless. Not quite satisfied with the delayed response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 should be imposed upon the CPIO for concealing the information sought and providing fabricated document to the appellant. The appellant further requested for award of compensation for being provided incomplete information in the first instance and delayed disposal of his first appeal.
21.3. The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided the copy of the reply received from the Director, IWAI Kolkata to the appellant.
21.4. The Commission observes that the CPIO had provided the information available with the public authority. The appellant, however, appears to have alleged in his first appeal that the letter dated 13.8.2015, as provided by the CPIO in his reply was "false and/or fabricated". The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to give certified copies of all the letters for the satisfaction of the appellant, as sought by him in his RTI application, within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The Commission further advises the FAA for the future to dispose of the first appeal within the stipulated time period. The appeal is disposed of.
File No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000127/MP 22.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 23.6.2014, sought copy of approved note sheet for installation of Bio Metric Machine in IWAI, issued by then Chairman, IWAI, Noida and whether the instruction as contained and issued by the then Chairman, IWAI was being followed strictly by IWAI Noida and field offices.
22.2. The CPIO on 09.07.2014 requested the appellant to deposit Rs. 22/- to obtain 11 pages comprising the information sought by him. Later, on receipt of payment of Rs. 22/- as photocopying charges for 11 pages on 19.08.2014, the CPIO provided the documents as desired by the appellant vide letter dated 25.8.2014. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority, vide his first appeal dated 13.09.2014 mentioning demand of various fees by the CPIO. The FAA, vide his order dated 21.10.2014, upheld the CPIO's reply. Not satisfied with the FAA's decision, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that CPIO had not provided the specific information.
2122.3. The CPIO stated that the appellant had sought copy of approved note sheet for installation of Bio Metric Machine in IWAI and whether the instruction as contained and issued by the then Chairman, IWAI was being followed strictly. The relevant note sheets relating to the installation of Bio Metric machine spread over 11 pages had been provided to the appellant after having received Rs.22/- which only was asked for in this case from the appellant on 25.08.2014 i.e. within the stipulated period of one month as provided under the RTI Act. He stated that the remaining part of the information sought that whether the instruction as contained and issued by the then Chairman, IWAI was being followed strictly did not fall under the category of information u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it was interrogatory in nature and could not be answered and no such information was available in material form.
22.4. The Commission observes that the available information i.e. 11 pages of note sheets relating to installation of Bio Metric machine had been already provided to the appellant. Under the provisions of the RTI Act the CPIO is not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record.
22.6. In view of the above, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO. The appeal is disposed of.
File No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000128/MP 23.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 19.8.2014, sought reasons for not granting him annual increment from 01.07.2014 and fixing of his pay on the promoted post of UDC as Rs. 2400/- Grade Pay from 26.06.2014 or Rs. 4200/- from 11.10.2010 irrespective of clarification/consent dated 30.07.2014 against OM dated 23.07.2014 and 28.05.2014.
23.2. The CPIO on 04.09.2014 intimated the appellant that the PIOs were to provide the information as held by the public authority and no reasons can be given for taking or not taking any action by the authority. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority, vide his first appeal dated 13.09.2014 requesting copies of records/note sheets not granting annual increment, fixing his pay under correct pay scale. The FAA, vide his order dated 17.10.2014, upheld the CPIO's reply and advised the appellant to file fresh RTI application to seek new/additional information i.e. copies of records/note sheets not granting annual increment etc. Not satisfied with the FAA's decision, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that CPIO had not provided correct and proper information.
23.3. The CPIO stated that the appellant was promoted as UDC, his pay was fixed and he got no incremental benefits. However, no such reasons were available in material form and the CPIO could only provide the information available and existing. Moreover the information sought was clarificatory in nature and the appellant in the guise of 22 seeking information was contesting the actions of the public authority which was outside the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant was not present to put forth his contentions, if any.
23.4. The Commission observes that the appellant is contesting the actions of the respondent public authority and it is not open to an appellant to ask, in the guise of seeking information, questions to the public authority about the nature and quality of their actions. It appears that the appellant has a grievance which may be placed before the appropriate forum as the RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of such grievances/disputes. Under the provisions of the RTI Act the CPIO is not required to interpret information or provide clarification, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. 23.6. In view of the above, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO. The appeal is disposed of.
File No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000129/MP 24.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 04.06.2014, sought the list of sanctioned posts (Technical and Non-technical) for IWAI Chennai Sub office with supporting proof i.e. SIU report for opening Chennai office and posting of officials; the effective date since when the posts were sanctioned along with the date of opening of Chennai office.
24.2. The CPIO on 02.07.2014 provided the appellant a copy of letter dated 12.11.2010 of Ministry of Shipping and addressed to the Chairperson, IWAI, Noida regarding creation of 5 senior level posts in IWAI. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority, vide his first appeal dated 30.07.2014. The FAA, vide his order dated 03.11.2014, upheld the CPIO's reply. Not satisfied with the FAA's decision, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that CPIO had not provided correct and complete information.
24.3. The CPIO stated that the appellant sought the list of sanctioned post for IWAI Chennai Sub office and the available information had been provided to him on 02.07.2014. He stated that no SIU (Staff Inspection Unit) was constituted and hence there was no SIU report available on record. The relevant document related to the sanctioned posts for Chennai office was the letter dated 12.11.2010 of Ministry of Shipping vide which the Government's approval for creation of said posts was conveyed to IWAI had been provided to the appellant on 02.07.2014. The appellant was not present to put forth his contentions, if any.
24.4. The Commission observes that the available information regarding the sanctioned posts for IWAI Chennai sub office had been already provided to the appellant. However, the date of opening of Chennai office was not provided by the CPIO. The Commission therefore directs the CPIO to provide the date of opening of IWAI Chennai office to the appellant within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
23File No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000130/MP 25.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 13.05.2014 (RTI Fee submitted on 24.05.2014), sought copy of office order no. 3-IWAI/Estt.2/2009 Pt. I dated 04.04.2014 reverting Shri Gurmakh Singh, Director, Patna along with copy of Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi direction and reminder; copy of letter no. L- 11020/1/2006-IWT dated 02.02.2012 sent to Chairperson, IWAI, Noida; copy of agenda no. 144.06 and 143.06 placed before Board Meeting and issued ny the then Secretary Shri S.K. Sahi and total number of posts of A.S. sanctioned by the Ministry of Shipping and the effective date of joining with proof.
25.2. The CPIO on 20.06.2014 requested the appellant to deposit Rs. 16/- to obtain 08 pages comprising the information sought by him. Not having received any information/document after depositing the requisite fee of Rs. 16/- as photocopying charges for 08 pages on 19.08.2014, the appellant approached the first appellate authority, vide his first appeal dated 29.09.2014. The FAA, vide his order dated 03.11.2014, observed that the information sought had been provided to the appellant on 25.08.2014 and upheld the CPIO's reply. Not satisfied with the FAA's decision, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that CPIO had not provided the requisite information.
25.3. The CPIO stated that the appellant sought information on 4 points and the information sought on points 1 & 3 was same but on rest of the points the subjects were different. He was under the impression that applicant could seek information only on one subject in an RTI application and for different subjects one had to file separate RTI applications. The appellant on 20.06.2014 was requested to deposit Rs. 16/- to obtain 08 pages containing the information sought on points 1 & 3 of the RTI application. After receipt of Rs. 16/- from the appellant on 19.08.2014, the information sought on point 1 & 3 was provided to him on 25.08.2014.
25.4. A perusal of the second appeal of the appellant, it appears that the letter dated 25.08.2014 along with 08 pages of information sought claimed to have sent by the CPIO had not been received by the appellant. The Commission also observes that the information sought on point 1 i.e. copy of office order no. 3-IWAI/Estt.2/2009 Pt. I dated 04.04.2014 reverting Shri Gurmakh Singh, Director, Patna along with copy of Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi direction and reminder is personal information of third party and should not be divulged to the appellant. Further, there is no such provision under the RTI Act, 2005 allows the CPIO to withhold/deny the information only for the reason the points/queries consists of more than one subjects. It is seen that the Commission in the matter of Shri Amit Pande vs. GM (Legal), SIDBI (File No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001398/SG) vide order dated 07.09.2011 has held as under:
"At this juncture, it would be pertinent to mention that what constitutes a 'single subject matter' has neither been defined in the RTI Act, the rules and regulations framed there under and not even by the then Chief/ Information Commissioners in the said decisions. No parameters have been laid down by the then Chief/ 24 Information Commissioners by which an applicant and the PIO can determine whether the information sought pertains to one- subject matter. In the absence of any means to determine what tantamounts to 'one subject matter', the PIO can, at his discretion, furnish part information claiming that the remaining information sought in the RTI application pertains to a different subject matter for which a separate RTI application is required to be filed. The exercise of such discretion by the PIO is likely to be subjective resulting in arbitrary curtailment of the fundamental right to information of citizens and unnecessary expenditure of money. In the absence of any clear definition of what 'one category of request' means it would only lead to arbitrary refusals of information under the RTI Act, leading to clogging of the appellate mechanisms. However, rules framed by the competent authority could put some reasonable restrictions on the length of the RTI application."
24.5 In view of this the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the information sought to the appellant on point nos. 2, 3 & 4 of the RTI application dated 13.05.2014 within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order keeping in view the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO is cautioned to dispose the RTI applications as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and should not divulged third party information. The appeal is disposed of.
File No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000131/MP 26.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 19.08.2014, sought the copy of Recruitment Rules changed from time to time to make the unfit officials as fit in IWAI and whether the said rules were notified by IWAI and whether the consent of Ministry of Shipping was obtained for changing the rules.
26.2. The CPIO on 16.09.2014 intimated the appellant that the Recruitment Rules and the amendments therein were available on the department's website i.e. www.iwai.nic.in. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority, vide his first appeal dated 29.09.2014 requesting to provide amended Recruitment Rules in respect of Shri Harsh Vardhan promoted APRO to SO, Shri A. Sarkar, Director to Chief Engineer etc. The FAA, vide his order dated 03.11.2014, upheld the CPIO's reply and advised the appellant not to seek additional information at appeal stage. Not satisfied with the FAA's decision, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that CPIO had not provided complete information.
26.3. The CPIO stated that the appellant sought the copy of Recruitment Rules and amended Recruitment Rules. The CPIO on 16.09.2014 had intimated the appellant the website address i.e. www.iwai.nic.in stating that the RRs and amended RRs were available on the website. The appellant was not present to put forth his contentions, if any.
26.4. On hearing the respondent's submissions, the Commission observes that the information sought is available on the IWAI website in public domain. Here it will be apt 25 to quote the Commission's decision dated 12/04/2007 [Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00112] [Shri K. Lall v Sh M K Bagri, Assistant Registrar of Companies & CPIO], wherein it has been held as under:
".....it would mean that once certain information is placed in public domain accessible to the citizens either freely or on payment of a predetermined price, that information cannot be said to be 'held' or 'under the control' of the public authority and thus would cease to be an 'information' accessible under the RTI Act."
26.5 It is apparent from the decision cited above that once the information is brought into the public domain by placing the same on the website the same would cease to be information accessible under the RTI Act.
26.6. In view of the above, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO. The appeal is disposed of.
File No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000134/MP 27.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 19.08.2014, sought copy of clean/visible Internal Audit Report for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2013 sent to IWAI, Noida for compliance by the Ministry. The appellant also mentioned that replies to audit paras were not required, he only wanted audit paras/report.
27.2. The CPIO on 04.09.2014 requested the appellant to deposit Rs. 168/- to obtain 84 pages comprising the information sought by him. Later, on receipt of payment of Rs. 168/- as photocopying charges for 84 pages on 29.09.2014, the CPIO provided the documents as desired by the appellant vide letter dated 09.10.2014. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority, vide his first appeal dated 21.10.2014 stating that copy of Annexure 'E' mentioned at page no. 54 had not been provided; copy of page no. 7 was not clear and 28 pages had been sent in duplicate to him. The FAA, vide his order dated 20.11.2014, observed that the appellant had asked for internal audit reports sent by the Ministry to IWAI, the CPIO had sent the same, one sent by IWT section and the other by internal audit team and found it to be correct. However, the FAA directed the CPIO to provide copy of Annexure 'E' to the appellant. Not satisfied with the FAA's decision and also not having received copy of Annexure 'E' from the CPIO, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission.
27.3. The CPIO stated that the appellant sought copy of Internal Audit Report for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2013. After receipt of Rs. 168/- from the appellant on 29.09.2014, total 84 pages containing the internal audit reports as received from IWT section and from the internal audit team was provided to him on 09.10.2014. However, the copy of Annexure 'E' mentioned at page no. 54 could not be provided to the appellant inadvertently. With respect to the clear copy of page no. 7 the CPIO stated that the document as available on record had been provided to the appellant.
2627.4. The Commission observes that the copy of internal audit reports sought by the appellant had been provided to him. The Commission, however, directs the CPIO to provide the copy of Annexure 'E' mentioned at page no. 54 (in compliance with the FAA's order dated 20.11.2014) to the appellant within 03 days from the date of receipt of this order keeping the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in view. The CPIO is cautioned to comply with the FAA's order meticulously in future. The appeal is disposed of.
File No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000149/MP 28.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 20.02.2014, sought copies of proposal /requests made by IWAI to Ministry of Shipping regarding promotion of Shri Gurmakh Singh, SHS to Director during last 4 years; copies of the replies issued by the Ministry of Shipping and copies of compliance of instructions issued by Ministry of Shipping regarding the above said promotion and action taken by the Ministry if there was any non-compliance.
28.2. The CPIO on 23.04.2014 intimated the appellant that no proposal was made by IWAI to Ministry of Shipping regarding promotion of Shri Gurmakh Singh, no copies of replies issued by the Ministry and also no correspondence was made from IWAI to Ministry in this regard. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority, vide his first appeal dated 12.05.2014 stating that the CPIO was concealing the information as in agenda no. 144.06 there was a proposal for transfer on the post of each Director and Dy. Director for Engineering Wing to Hydrographic Wing and Shri Gurmakh Singh, SHS was appointed as Dy. Director. The FAA, vide his order dated 02.12.2014, while upholding the CPIO's reply observed that the correspondence made between IWAI and the Ministry of Shipping as mentioned by the appellant in his first appeal was not related to the promotion of Shri Gurmakh Singh, SHS to Director. Not satisfied with the FAA's decision, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that CPIO had not provided correct information.
28.3. The CPIO stated that the appellant sought correspondences related to the promotion of Shri Gurmakh Singh, SHS to Director. However, as per the records available neither any communication was sent to the Ministry of Shipping from IWAI regarding promotion of Shri Gurmakh Singh from SHS to Director nor any letter/reply was issued by the Ministry in this regard. The same had been communicated to the appellant on 23.04.2014. The FAA also upheld the CPIO's reply. The appellant was not present to put forth his contentions, if any.
28.4. The Commission observes that the information sought had been provided to the appellant on 23.04.2014. No intervention is called for on the part of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
File No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000150/MP 29.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 19.08.2014, sought copy of complete report submitted by Sub Regional office, ESIC, Kolkata as per 27 letter no. N/40/D-1/Inspection/40000380110001018 dated 25.06.2014, addressed to Director, IWAI, Kolkata for non-compliance of ESI Act, 1948 in respect of Security personnel for the period from 07.11.2011 to 28.02.2014 by Asian Security and Allied Services, Kolkata.
29.2. The CPIO, Noida transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, Kolkata u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 on 25.08.2014 as the matter pertained to Kolkata Office. The CPIO, Kolkata office intimated the appellant on 28.08.2014 that information sought was not available in the office. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority, vide his first appeal dated 13.09.2014. The FAA, vide his order dated 13.10.2014, directed the CPIO Kolkata to get the inspection report from ESIC authorities and provide the required information to the appellant. Subsequently, the CPIO, Kolkata on 19.11.2014 provided the copy of inspection report (after obtaining the same from the ESIC authority) pertaining to the inspection conducted on 01.07.2014 to the appellant. However, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the inspection report was available with the CPIO, Kolkata but the same was denied initially by the CPIO.
29.3. The CPIO stated that the appellant sought copy of complete report submitted by Sub Regional office, ESIC, Kolkata in respect of Security personnel for the period from 07.11.2011 to 28.02.2014 by Asian Security and Allied Services, Kolkata. The report was not available in the office and the same was communicated to the appellant. However, in compliance with the FAA's order dated 13.10.2014 the ESIC authorities were requested on 13.11.2014 to supply the report on urgent basis. Thereafter, the inspection report pertaining to the inspection conducted on 01.07.2014 (as received from the ESIC authority) was provided to the appellant on 19.11.2014.
29.4. A perusal of the records and on hearing the respondent's submissions the Commission observes that the information sought i.e. report submitted by Sub Regional office, ESIC, Kolkata in respect of Security personnel for the period from 07.11.2011 to 28.02.2014 by Asian Security and Allied Services, had been provided to the appellant after obtaining from the ESIC office in compliance of the FAA's order dated 13.10.2014. The Commission finds no merit in the appellant's contention that the information sought was available with the CPIO and was denied initially. The appeal is disposed of.
File No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000151/MP 30.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 29.04.2014, sought details of amount lost from Shri S.S. Pandian, C.E. and Ex-Member (T) for going abroad officially drawn as advance; whether any FIR was lodged for such loss; whether Ministry of Shipping , New Delhi followed the OM No. 3/6/97-Estt. (Pay II) dated 29.01.1998 as amended by OM No. 6/12/2008-Estt.(Pay II) dated 14.11.2008 and OM No. 6/12/2008-Estt.(Pay II) dated 18.11.2009 while selecting Shri S.S. Pandian as Member (T) in IWAI on deputation and PPO details of Shri S.S. Pandian, etc. 28 30.2. The CPIO on 19.06.2014 intimated the appellant that Shri Pandian was paid as advance of 1940 EURO and he had claimed 700 EURO that was snatched by miscreants at Rotterdam and only travelling expenditure was considered for payment. The copy of PPO of Shri Pandian was also provided to the appellant. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority, vide his first appeal dated 04.07.2014. The FAA, vide his order dated 03.11.2014, upheld the CPIO's reply. Not satisfied with the FAA's decision, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission.
30.3. The CPIO stated that the appellant sought details of amount lost from Shri S.S. Pandian, C.E. and Ex-Member (T) for going abroad officially, drawn as advance; whether any FIR was lodged for such loss; whether Ministry of Shipping , New Delhi followed the OM No. 3/6/97-Estt. (Pay II) dated 29.01.1998 as amended by OM No. 6/12/2008-Estt.(Pay II) dated 14.11.2008 and OM No. 6/12/2008-Estt.(Pay II) dated 18.11.2009 while selecting Shri S.S. Pandian as Member (T) in IWAI on deputation and PPO details of Shri S.S. Pandian etc. the information available on records had been provided to the appellant on 19.06.2014 along with the copy of PPO of Shri S.S. Pandian. However, the rest of the information sought i.e. whether Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi followed certain OMs and whether IWAI Noida followed the guidelines was interrogatory and clarificatory in nature. No such information was available in material form and the CPIO could only provide the information available and existing. The appellant was not present to put forth his contentions, if any.
30.4. The Commission observes that the available information had been provided to the appellant on 19.06.2014. On a plain reading of information sought it appears that the appellant is contesting the actions of the respondent public authority and it is not open to an appellant to ask, in the guise of seeking information, questions to the public authority about the nature and quality of their actions. Under the provisions of the RTI Act the CPIO is not required to interpret information or provide clarification, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. The appeal is disposed of.
File No. CIC/YA/A/2015/002168/MP 31.1. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant, vide his RTI application dated 24.01.2015, sought copy of note sheets for transfer of Shri R.S. Nagar, Appellate Authority from Bhagalpur to Noida along with copy of note sheet of field recommendation and copy of transfer order.
31.2. The CPIO, Noida on 13.02.2015 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, Patna u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the transfer of the RTI application, the appellant approached the first appellate authority, vide his first appeal dated 28.02.2015. The FAA, vide his order dated 01.04.2015, observed that it was not clear as to what information the appellant did not get and advised the appellant to clearly incorporate the reason for appeal. Further, the appellant again filed another appeal on 29 30.03.2015. The FAA vide order dated 12.05.2015 observed that the transfer of the RTI application was in order, however, directed the CPIO, Patna to provide note sheet as required by the appellant. Not satisfied with the FAA's decision, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission.
31.3. The CPIO stated that the appellant sought copy of note sheets for transfer of Shri R.S. Nagar, Appellate Authority from Bhagalpur to Noida along with copy of note sheet of field recommendation and copy of transfer order. Since the information sought was about the transfer of Shri R.S. Nagar from Bhagalpur to Noida, the RTI application was transferred to CPIO, Patna office on 13.02.2015 and simultaneously the information/documents available with the Noida office had been provided to the appellant on 25.02.2015. The CPIO, Patna also provided the relevant documents to the appellant on 12.03.2015. The FAA vide order dated 12.05.2015 directed the CPIO, Patna to provide the requisite note sheet to the appellant, however, the FAA's order could not be complied with.
31.4. The Commission observes that the information sought i.e. copy of note sheets for transfer of Shri R.S. Nagar, Appellate Authority from Bhagalpur to Noida is personal information of third party and exempt u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The same should not be disclosed to the appellant without any larger public interest. In the instant matter no larger public interest is involved. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001585/MP
32. Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, the appellant submitted RTI application dated 24.01.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), Noida; seeking copies of transfer order and related note sheets in respect of Shri S.V.K. Reddy, the then Dy. Director from Patna to Noida and thereafter from Noida to Kolkata along with copy of promotion order as Director.
32.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 25.02.2015 provided copy of the note sheets and orders issued in respect of Shri S.V.K. Reddy to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 10.04.2015. The FAA after verifying the details in file vide order dated 29.05.2015 concurred with the reply of the CPIO.
32.3. The appellant thereafter filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 05.06.2015 on the grounds that the respondent authority had provided incorrect information and concealed information.
32.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that information as available in the records had been provided to the appellant.
32.5 The Commissions observes that the CPIO had provided information pertaining to third party, which should not be provided to the appellant. The Commission cautions the 30 CPIO to strictly adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in divulging third party information to the RTI applicants in future. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001355/MP 33.1 The appellant submitted RTI application dated 16.02.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), Noida; seeking copy of work order issued and copies of all related note sheets for recommendation and award of tender to M/s. Chinar Shipping and Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai for dredging of hard strata under Varanasi Sector of NW-I. 33.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 18.03.2015 provided the information copy of the note sheet pertaining to the award of tender to M/s. Chinar Shipping & Infrastructure. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 10.04.2015. The FAA vide order dated 22.04.2015 concurred with the reply of the CPIO and held that the information sought had been provided completely.
33.3. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 05.06.2015 on the grounds of incomplete information having been provided by the respondent authority.
33.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that complete information had been provided to the appellant. The appellant was not present to indicate shortcoming in the information provided to him.
33.5 The Commissions accepts the submissions of the respondent authority and upholds their decision. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000550/DSHIP/MP 34.1. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 02.04.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), Kolkata; seeking month-wise dredging quantity report along with corresponding date-wise dredging hours correlating POL consumption for dredger CSD Tapi for the year 2012-3 and 2013-14; number and name of dredger/dredging crew deployed month-wise in the year 2012-13 by Chinar Shipping; proof of EPF and ESIC made by Chinar Shipping for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14; whether Director, IWAI, Kolkata had satisfied before releasing the payment to Chinar Shipping; whether Director, IWAI had made a cross check of the quantity dredged regularly before releasing payment etc. through five points.
34.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 17.05.2014 sent a point-wise reply along with copies of documents. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 16.06.2014. The FAA vide order dated 28.08.2014 directed the CPIO to provide answer to point 4 as recorded in the file and on point 5 if records about the cross checking was available. The CPIO vide letter dated 31 07.01.2015, in compliance with the directions of the FAA, provided information on points 4 and 5 to the appellant.
34.3. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 16.02.2015 of concealment of information and providing it with delay by the CPIO.
34.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that information as available in the records had been provided to the appellant. The CPIO complied with the directions of the FAA and provided information on points 4 and 5 of the RTI application.
34.5 The Commissions observes that the respondent authority had appropriately responded to the appellant. The Commission upholds the decision of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000972/MP 35.1 The appellant submitted RTI application dated 05.01.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), Noida seeking copy of letter sent by the Director, IWAI, Kolkata to C.E. (P&M), Noida in the month of December, 2014 regarding taking over of CSD Tapi Unit from Chinar Shipping, Mumbai; copy of work order issued by Director, Kolkata to Asian Security & Allied Service, Kolkata in the month of November, 2014 for supply of security personnel; copy of letter sent by Director, Kolkata for Secretary and AA, IWAI in the month of November, 2014 intimating not denial of information to ESIC, Kolkata letter dated 25.6.2014 making available the report; copy of letter issued y Dy. Director, IWAI, Varanasi sent to IWAI, Noida immediately after joining at Varanasi regarding senior officials required at Varanasi for Plan Fund due to Varanasi etc. through two points.
35.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 08.01.2015 advised the appellant to file separate application for separate subjects, while relying upon the Commission's decision in case No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000961. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 24.01.2015. The FAA vide order dated 12.03.2015 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
35.3 The appellant not quite satisfied, filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 15.04.2015 on the grounds of denial of information by the respondent authority.
35.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO vide letter dated 22.01.2015 provided replied to the appellant while keeping the CIC order mentioned in view.
35.4 The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and upholds their decision. Moreover, the appellant seems to have copies of the documents sought by him. The appeal is disposed of.
32Case No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001651/MP 36.1 Through his RTI application dated 24.01.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), Noida the appellant sought copy of transfer order in respect of Mohd. Aslam, TA from Bhagalpur to Noida along with copies of related note sheets and Field Office recommendations/note sheet.
36.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 25.02.2015 provided copy of transfer order along with copy of note sheet in respect of Mohd. Aslam to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 10.04.2015 on the grounds that copy of recommendation of the Field Office had not been provided. The FAA vide order dated 28.05.2015 held that the CPIO had provided available information to the appellant.
36.3 The appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 08.06.2015 on the grounds that copy of the note sheet pertaining to the recommendation of the Field Office was not provided.
36.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided information as available to the appellant.
36.5 The Commissions observes that the CPIO should not provide information pertaining to third party without invoking the provisions of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission warns the CPIO for providing third party information to the appellant.
Case No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001652/MP 37.1 The appellant submitted RTI application dated 24.01.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), Noida seeking copy of transfer order and all related note sheets in respect of Shri P.S. Rao, A.D. for his transfer from Varanasi to Noida.
37.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 25.02.2015 provided copy of transfer order along with copy of note sheet in respect of Shri P.S. Rao, A.D along with copy of note sheet. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 10.04.2015. The FAA vide order dated 28.05.2015 held that the CPIO had provided the information and the appellant had extended the scope of his RTI application, which was not permissible under the RTI Act, 2005.
37.3 Dissatisfied, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 08.06.2015 on the grounds that CPIO had not provided copy of representation dated 30.09.2010 from Shri P.S. Rao.
3337.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided information as sought to the appellant.
37.5 The Commissions observes that the CPIO had provided third party information to the appellant. The Commission therefore warns the CPIO not to provide third party information to the RTI applicants without invoking the provisions of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001653/MP 38.1 The appellant submitted RTI application dated 24.01.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), Noida seeking copies of related note sheets for opening of Vijawada Office, date of opening/complete address, names and designations of officers posted at IWAI, Vijaywada and whether any deputationist/contract officials were working etc. 38.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 25.02.2015 provided the desired information to the appellant. The appellant however filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 09.04.2015. The FAA vide order dated 01.06.2015 observed that the appellant had filed appeal against non-provision of all note sheets information regarding the inauguration of office, whether officers were working on contract and on reviewing the reply given by the CPIO held that the CPIO had provided information as per available records.
38.3 Dissatisfied, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 08.06.2015 on the grounds that CPIO had not provided the information by whom the office was inaugurated and one Ms. Jyoti had been appointed on contingent/contract basis, which had been concealed by the CPIO.
38.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that nobody had inaugurated the office of IWAI at Vijayawada. They reiterated that information as available had been provided to the appellant.
38.5 The Commissions accepts the submissions of the respondents. The Commission upholds the decision of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001689/MP 39.1 The appellant submitted RTI application dated 24.01.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), Noida seeking copies of related note sheets for opening of Bhubaneswar Office, date of opening/complete address, names and designations of officers posted at IWAI, Bhubaneswar and whether any deputationist/contract officials were working for IWAI with effective date of working, whether Bhubaneswar office was functioning in a rented premises or Govt. Building etc. 34 39.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 25.02.2015 provided the desired information to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 10.04.2015. The FAA vide order dated 04.06.2015 observes that CPIO had replied to the appellant by enclosing copy of letter written by Chief Engineer (P&M) to Director IWT Bhubaneswar and a letter dated 21.1.2015 intimating operationalizing of office. A copy of the note sheet indicating approval of competent authority for operation of two Dy. Directors post created in the PMO at Bhubaneswar. The CPIO had yet to provide information on the office address where the office was functioning and directed the CPIO to provide copy of note sheet to the appellant wherein competent authority had approved the opening of the office in rented premises in Bhubaneswar. The CPIO vide letter dated 04.06.2015, in compliance with the directions of the FAA, provided copy of the note sheet having approval of the competent authority for opening the office at Bhubaneswar in a rented premises.
39.3 The appellant thereafter filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 15.06.2015 on the grounds that the CPIO had knowingly concealed the information by not providing copy of note sheet for opening of the office at Bhubaneswar, which was provided on the directions of the FAA.
39.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had provided information as available to the appellant and the CPIO complied with the directions of the FAA.
39.5 The Commissions observes that the same information had been sought by the appellant about Vijayawada Office through his RTI application of the same date. The appellant could have sought it for both the offices through one RTI application as there was a common CPIO but the appellant chose not to do so. This has only resulted in increase of unavoidable work on the part of the officers from the receipt and dispatch to the CPIO and FAA and disproportionately diversion of resources of the public authority. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001690/MP 40.1 Vide his RTI application dated 24.01.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), Noida the appellant sought copies of note sheet for transfer of Shri K.K. Pandey, Draftsman from Bhagalpur to Varanasi on illness ground along with recommendation of field officer concerned and copy of transfer order.
40.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 12.03.2015 provided the desired information consisting of one page to the appellant. The appellant however filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 28.02.2015 on the grounds of delay and transfer of RTI application. The FAA vide order dated 12.05.2015 directed the CPIO, IWAI, Patna to provide copy of note sheet as required by the appellant and found the transfer of the RTI application to be in order. The CPIO vide letter dated 23.05.2015, in compliance with the directions of the FAA, provided copy of note sheet having the recommendations of the field officer to the appellant.
3540.3 Dissatisfied, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 16.06.2015 on the same grounds as in his first appeal for willful delay and concealment of information by the respondent authority.
40.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had provided information as available to the appellant and the CPIO complied with the directions of the FAA.
40.5 The Commissions observes that the CPIO had provided third party information to the appellant without invoking the provisions of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission warns the CPIO to be careful in future. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/YA/A/2015/001692/MP 41.1 The appellant submitted RTI application dated 26.02.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI), Kolkata seeking copy of letter No. IWAI/KOL/Dir/2014/1710 dated 12.12.2014; copy of report dated 19.1.2015 submitted by committee of S/Shri L.K. Rajak, DD, Arvind Kumar, AD, Ajay Kar, JAO and Anil Kr. JHS In the matter of M/s. Chinar for HSD enquiry; copies of HDS bills 14 bills claimed by M/s. Chinar for O&M contract giving the date of the bill, quantity and amount; copy of action taken report or recommendation sent for blacklisting to Asian Security, Kolkata for alleged irregularities for non-compliance u/s 85(g) of ESI Act 1948 as per letter dated 11.2.2015 of ESIC and inspection report dated 30.7.2014 as well as tampering in attendance incorporated by the contractor through four points.
41.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 31.03.2015 provided information on points 1 to 3 and informed the appellant on point 4 that action needs to be taken over ESIC report letter dated 11.02.2015 by M/s. Asian Security, Kolkata. The same was not available with IWAI. Requisite action to recover the wages for the days of absence had already been taken as per the directives of the appellate authority. No correspondence on blacklisting of M/s. Asian Security existed with IWAI. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 26.03.2015. The FAA vide order dated 04.06.2015 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
41.3 Not satisfied the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 16.06.2015 on the grounds of having been provided 33 extra HSD bills, SBI statement, plain paper which were not sought and no satisfactory information on point 4 was provided.
41.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had provided information as available to the appellant.
41.5 The Commissions observes that it appears that the appellant already holds the information as he quoted the letter numbers and dates and even the date of the bills along with the amount and quantity which is difficult if not impossible to quote in case one did not already have the copy of the bills. The Commission advises the respondent 36 authority to ensure to keep the records in the custody of the officers assigned for the purpose. The Commission upholds the decision of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.
42. Before parting with the appeals, the Commission observes that the appellant has indulged in blatant misuse of the RTI Act, 2005 by submitting very large number of RTI applications. As submitted by the respondents, the appellant is a serial RTI applicant and had filed around 267 RTI applications from September, 2009 to July, 2017. The appellant had filed multiple RTI applications seeking information on similar matter such as the contract details of Chinar Shipping & Trading Co. (P) Ltd., Mumbai and personal information such as DPC details, LTC availed, TA Bills etc. in respect of Shri P.R. Rao and Shri S.V.K. Reddy. Earlier too, the Commission vide its order dated 27.03.2015 adjudicated on the appellant's 21 appeals held that "the appellant had filed around 199 RTI applications since the year 2009. The public authority has already spent inordinately large number of man hours in furnishing the information to the appellant, which in the process would have already impinged on the scarce resources of the organization. The Commission, therefore, is constrained to warn the appellant to be more careful in future, failing which the Commission will be compelled to dismiss his applications without hearing, on the grounds of being vexatious and repetitive and with an ulterior motive."
43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay had observed that:
"The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. 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 prioritizing `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
44. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shail Sahni Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and Ors [W.P. (C) 845/2014] with regard to the misuse of the RTI Act had observed:
"10...This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this 'sunshine Act'. A beneficent statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. A copy of this order is directed to be sent by the Registry to Defence and Law Ministry, so that they may examine the aspect of misuse of this Act, which confers very important and valuable rights upon a citizen."37
45. By filing such an extensive number of RTI applications, first appeals and second appeals, the appellant appears to be only creating difficulties in the smooth working of the public authority. The appellant is advised to use the rights available to him under the RTI Act with full responsibility in future so as not to overburden the public authority with frivolous and vexatious RTI applications which impinge on the scarce resources of the public authority, enabling the public authority to use its time and resources for providing information expeditiously and efficiently.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Deputy Registrar.
Address of the parties:
Shri Ajit Kumar Roy, C/O Inland Waterways Authority of India, 60F/44, Nawab Yusuf Road, Civil Line, Allahabad-211001.
The Central Public Information Officer, Inland Waterways Authority of India, Head Office, A-13, Sector-I, Noida-201301 (U.P).
The First Appellate Authority, Inland Waterways Authority of India, Head Office, A-13, Sector-I, Noida-201301 (U.P).38
The Central Public Information Officer, Inland Waterways Authority of India, Regional Office, P-78, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata-700043.
The Central Public Information Officer, Inland Waterways Authority of India, Regional Office, I.W.T. Terminal, Gaighat, P.O. Gulzarbagh, Patna-800007.39