Central Information Commission
Hasina Shabbir Hemani vs Department Of Revenue on 17 May, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DOREV/A/2017/169994-BJ
Mrs. Hasina Shabbir Hemani
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue
Office of the Competent Authority & Administrator
Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976
And Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Mittal Court, C - Wing, 3rd Floor, Nariman Point
Mumbai - 400021
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.05.2019
Date of Decision : 17.05.2019
Date of RTI application 25.04.2017
CPIO's response 04.05.2017
Date of the First Appeal 30.05.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 30.06.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the order passed in the petition of Smt. Hasina.S.Hemani dated 24/03/2017 or the reason for not doing so.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 04/05/2017 replied that "the petition was processed and it was decided that no action is required to be taken in the view of letter dated 28/07/2011 addressed to Smt. Gulbanu Hassanali Rupani". Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 30/06/2017 while stating that the CPIO had provided all the information available on record dismissed the Appeal.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 5
Appellant: Mr. Iqbal Rupani Appellant's Representative through VC; Respondent: Mr. Stanly Joseph, CPIO, SAFEMA / NDPSA through VC;
The Appellant's representative reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that he essentially desired the information regarding the compliance of Section 68Z of the NDPS Act by the competent authority which was not answered to his satisfaction. The Respondent submitted that the information held and available on record was provided by the CPIO/ FAA in reference to the queries raised by the Appellant in the RTI application wherein he did not specify Compliance of Section 68Z of the NDPS Act but only desired to know the copy of the order passed on his petition dated 24.03.2017 and reason for not doing so. Explaining the background of the matter, the Respondent submitted that the matter regarding which the RTI application was filed was already heard, adjudicated and dismissed by various Courts. The Respondent thereafter furnished a synopsis of the updated status of the cases filed in this regard as under:
S.N. Petition No. Filed Before Date of Disposal Order
1. W.P. 1281/97 Bombay High 23/07/1999 Dismissed
Court
2. W.P. 1365/99 Bombay High 14.10.1999 Dismissed
Court
3. W.P. 2345/99 Bombay High 12.01.2000 Dismissed
Court
4. W.P. 835/2000 Bombay High 09.06.2000 Dismissed
Court
5. SLP 3629- Supreme Court 10.10.2000 Dismissed
30/2000
6. W.P. 2694/2004 Bombay High 07.06.2011 Dismissed
Court
7. SLP. 8397/2011 Supreme Court 18.11.2011 Dismissed
8. W.P. No. Bombay High 28.09.2012 Dismissed
1609/2012 Court
9. SLP 2134/2013 Supreme Court 25.03.2015 Dismissed
10. W.P. No. Bombay High 16.02.2017 Dismissed as
2942/2015 Court withdrawn
Furthermore, it was submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 25.03.2015 in SLP No. 2134/2013 in the petition filed by the AP had observed as under:
"It appears that the issue involved is said to have been considered four times by the High Court and three times by this Court. We do not find any reason to decide the matter afresh.
The Special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 22.02.2018, wherein at the outset he denied all the allegations and averments raised by the Appellant and stated that the same were devoid of any merit and derived out of malafide intentions. The issues raised in the present appeal were outside the purview of the RTI Act and vide the original Page 2 of 5 application, the Appellant sought to reopen a case already dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The application was replied by the Public Information Officer strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The First Appeal was also dismissed on the said ground. The issues raised by the Appellant pertained to the quasi judicial proceedings initiated by the Competent Authority which resulted in forfeiture of a property and confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal, High Court and Supreme Court repeatedly. The contents or merits of the said proceedings cannot be discussed in a proceeding under the RTI Act and was far beyond the jurisdiction of the authorities under the RTI Act. The requirement of the RTI was to provide the documents and information available in material form. Under the RTI Act, it was not possible to examine the merits of the documents involved or to deduce any information or reasons from any available record. Under the circumstances it was submitted that the RTI application and subsequent appeals do not have any larger public interest but a mere tactics of litigative acrobatics to delay or reopen the proceedings under a different Act. Thereafter a para wise reply on the grounds of the Second Appeal was provided. Thus, it was stated that there was a deliberate attempt by the Appellant to delay the proceedings (auction of the forfeited property) by consuming/ wasting the time and resources of the authorities concerned. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the Appeal. The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, Page 3 of 5 papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act Page 4 of 5 cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
चना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सूचना
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 17.05.2019
Page 5 of 5