Central Information Commission
Shubhangi Karolia vs Rashtraiya Ispat Nigam Ltd. on 7 June, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या/Complaint No. CIC/RINLT/C/2019/649133
Ms. Shubangi Karolia ...निकायतकताग/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited ...प्रनतवािी /Respondent
Visakhapatnam
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:-
RTI : 16-04-2019 FA : 21-05-2019 Complaint: 30-08-2019
CPIO : 14-10-2019 FAO : Not on record Hearing: 01-06-2021
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited , Visakhapatnam seeking following information:-
1. "The procedure of granting NOC or forwarding application through proper channel.
2. Is the uniform procedure to all executive or it differs depending on grade or scale of executive, provide the detail.
3. The procedure of granting lien for the present post and its terms and conditions/duration. What are the formalities required by employee and/or by the joining Central Government Department or Autonomous bodies?
4. Detail of Instances/cases where the lien will not be granted to outgoing employee, who joining Government Department/ Autonomous bodies.
5. Is the Company are accepting technical resignation along with transfer of leaves, gratuity and provident fund to the Government Department/Autonomous bodies joining. What are the formalities Page 1 of 4 required by employee and/or the joining Central Government Department or Autonomous bodies.
6. Please provide the number of total cases/requests has been received by RINL for granting lien in the present post in last two years i.e. 2017 and 2018. Also provide corresponding number of cases consider for lien and lien granted by RINL in same period.
7. Please provide the number of total cases where technical resignation has been applied by the outgoing employees and requests of transfer of leaves, gratuity and provident fund to the Government Department /Autonomous bodies in last two years i.e. 2017 and 2018. Also provide its corresponding number of cases, who were considered for technical resignation and transfer of leaves, gratuity and provident fund to the Government Department/Autonomous bodies by the RINL in same period."
2. The CPIO responded on 14-10-2019. The complainant filed the first appeal dated 21-05-2019 which was not disposed of by the first appellate authority. Thereafter, she filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Hearing:
3. The complainant, Ms. Shubangi Karolia did not attend the hearing and also could not be contacted at the scheduled time of hearing despite efforts. Mr. H M Sehgal, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The respondent informed the Commission that they have already furnished the point-wise information to the complainant vide their letter dated 14-10-2019.
Regarding the delay, he stated that it took time in compiling the data from 20 zones in respect of 17,000 employees. The given reply was also read out by the respondent.
Decision:
5. This Commission observes that the CPIO has provided the information to the complainant after undertaking massive exercise of compilation from 20 zones.
However, the CPIO was not required to collect and compile the information on the demand of the requester nor was he expected to create a fresh one merely because someone had asked for it. This legal principle is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04-12-2014 in W.P.(C) 6634/2011 & CM No.13398/2011 titled as The Registrar, Supreme Court Of Page 2 of 4 India v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors., wherein, it was observed as follows:-
"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant. The Supreme Court in AdityaBandhopadhyay (supra) 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. Further, this Commission observes that the CPIO was not expected to compile the information which required disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority. On this aspect, it is apt to mention the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 dated 09/08/2011 titled as Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay&Ors., wherein, it was observed as under:-
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non productive work of collecting and furnishing information. 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 Page 3 of 4 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."
7. Nonetheless, the CPIO has furnished the point-wise information to the complainant vide letter dated 14-10-2019 and hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. Regarding the delay, the CPIO is cautioned to be more vigilant in future and not to contravene the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
8. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गुप्ता) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date : 01-06-2021 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानित सत्यानित प्रनत) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. िमाग), Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Administrative Building, Visakhapatnam-530031
2. Ms. Shubhangi Karolia Page 4 of 4