Central Information Commission
Gita Dewan Verma vs Department Of Agriculture & ... on 29 August, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/646290 +
CIC/DOA&C/C/2022/646291 +
CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/651863 +
CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/651864 +
CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/651866 +
CIC/DOA&C/C/2022/651867 +
CIC/DOA&C/C/2022/651870
Gita Dewan Verma ......अपीलकता /Appellant
....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
1. Department of Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare,
Drought Management Division,
RTI Cell, Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi- 110001
2. Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry Dairying
O/o. Chief Controller of Accounts,
Pay & Account Office (Sectt.-I)
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25/08/2023
Date of Decision : 25/08/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above-mentioned Appeal(s)/Complaint (s) have been clubbed
together for decision as these are based on similar issues.
1
Relevant facts emerging from appeal(s)S/complaint (s):
RTI applications filed on : 21/06/2022, 25/06/2022, 13/07/2022, 14/07/2022 &
29/07/2022
CPIO replied on : 29/06/2022, 30/06/2022, 08/07/2022, 20/07/2022 &
19/08/2022
First appeal filed on : 02/07/2022, 09/07/2022 & 20/07/2022
First Appellate Authority : 22/08/2022, 22/07/2022,
orders 05/08/2022 & 10/08/2022
2nd Appeals/Complaints : 25/08/2022 & 23/09/2022
dated
CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/646290 +
CIC/DOA&C/C/2022/646291
Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application (s) dated 21.06.2022 seeking the following information:
"Copies of the letter No. 23/06/2022-DM-1 dated 26/04/22 and my appeal forwarded thereby to FAA (O&M/PG) are attached for ready reference.
Please provide copies of the orders by which the Scarcity Relief Division was created, subsequently assigned work relating to various natural calamities, and later renamed as the Natural Disaster Management Division.
Please also inform the Departments / Wings under which the said Division was placed at various times and whether it was at any time designated Nodal Division."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant/Complainant on 29.06.2022 and 30.06.2022 stating as under:
"I am directed to refer to your aforesaid RTI application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and to say that copies of the orders by which the Scarcity Relief Division was created are not traceable in O&M/PG Section. Moreover, it is to inform you of a copy of your RTI Appeal Registration No. DOA&A/E/22/00111 dated 04.04.2022. as forwarded by DM Division vide their letter No. 23/6/202-DM-I dated 26.04.2022. was not received/delivered in this Section."2
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 02.07.2022 on the following grounds -
"....Response dated 29/06/22 is INCOMPLETE, referring only to orders creating Scarcity Relief Division, whereas my request refers also to orders by which that Division was assigned work relating to natural calamities, renamed NDM Division, designated Nodal Division etc. It is also PERFUNCTORY - because the relevant records cannot be untraceable, being part of history of the existing Drought Management Division in MoA, the existing DM Division in MHA, and of DM initiatives of GOI since Independence (i.e., records fit for permanent preservation). Files may have been recorded and / or transferred in 2002 and would be traceable from lists made by Departmental Records Officer under the Public Records Act- 1993 and / or lists prepared in 2002 as per procedure laid down in CSMOP for transfer of records."
FAA's order dated 22.08.2022, held as under:
"I have gone through the case. I would like to inform you that the orders relating to the creation of the Natural Disaster Management Division & its predecessor offices are not traceable in the existing Drought Management Division. A copy of your Appeal Registration No. DOA&C/A/E/22/00111 dated 04.04.2022 has already been forwarded to the First Appellate Authority (O&WPO) for providing copies of the above-mentioned Orders, as O&M/PO Division is concerned with matters relating to restructuring of the Department."
CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/651863 CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/651864 CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/651866 CIC/DOA&C/C/2022/651867 CIC/DOA&C/C/2022/651870 Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant filed four similar RTI application (s) dated 25.06.2022, 13.07.2022, 14.07.2022 & 29.07.2022 seeking the following information:3
"Copy of Department of Legal Affairs opinion dated 15/06/06 (Dy.no.1291/DRM/JS&LA dt. 24.5.05 issued by Shri D. R. Meena, Joint Secretary & GC, Advice B Section to Ministry of Agriculture in the matter of the Indian Peoples Famine Trust) was provided to me in RTI process by o/o Chief Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Agriculture (CCAMA). With reference thereto, and enclosing copy thereof, I had a made further request to that office in response to which I was provided copy of letter dated 14/06/06 (No. IPNCT/AGRI/2005-06/232 of Shri U. C. Pant, CCAMA, to Sh. D. R. Meena, Legal Adviser, Mk Law & Justice) seeking the opinion that was provided vide Department of Legal Affairs letter dated 15/06/06. Copy of the said CCAMA letter dated 14/06/06, which mentions prior letters dated 20/05/05 and 10/08/05, is ATTACHED.
The remainder of my further request to CCAMA of was transferred through Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare to the Department of Legal Affairs vide No. MOLAW/R/T/22/00105 dated 24/03/22 to provide the information for the following points:
2. All any prior and subsequent references made to seek legal opinion in the matter,
3. All any prior or subsequent legal opinions received in the matter,
4. (w.r.t second paragraph of the Legal Opinion, saying that the Trust was vested in the Treasurers of Charitable Endowments appointed under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (the Act)) all items under the Act related to the Trust from time of Its first vesting in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments till the time of its closure in 2015... Department of Legal Affairs had made transfer dated 20/04/22 to CCAMA. The information has not been forthcoming pursuant to that. I therefore applied to o/o Treasurer of Charitable Endowments for India in the Department of Economic Affairs. I have been informed that the Indian Peoples Famine Trust was not vested in that Treasurer.
REQUEST:
In context of the foregoing, I again request the information held by Department of Legal Affairs for the above-listed three points that were transferred to it vide MOLAW/R/T/22/00105 dated 24/03/22 and / or (a) the particulars of the Treasurer of Charitable Endowments in whom the Indian Peoples Famine Trust was vested under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, and (b) information by 4 way of basic description of records related to the Indian Peoples Famine Trust held in Department of Legal Affairs / examined for its opinion dated 15/06/06."
The CPIO furnished separate replies to the appellant/complainant on 08.07.2022, 20.07.2022, 19.08.2022 stating as under:
"The requisite information is not available/traceable in the Drought Management Division, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.07.2022 and 20.07.2022 by raising the following arguments-
" GROUNDS - The information in issue is inclusive of that for which my request No. CCAMA/R/E/22/00005 was partially transferred to DoAFW vide DOA&C/R/X/22/00016 that DoAFW had transferred to DoLA on 24/03/22. The matter was not disposed of in DoLA because It was transferred and circled back vide CCAMAMT/22/00002, which was re-transferred vide DOA&C/R/T/22/00255 that was now transferred not to Daft but back and forth vide CCAMA/11/1/22/00003, DOA&C/R/T/22/00280. CCAMA/R/T/22/00004 and DOA&C/R/T/22/00323 dated 27/05/22 that CPIO disposed of on 22/06/22 informing that the information is not available/traceable. That much was apparent from the back-and-forth transfers between offices that I believe to be diligent on basis of my recent experience. That is why I had applied to DoLA specifically for information held by it. I believe that my request can only be disposed of by DoLA and its transfer to DoAFW should have been returned to DoLA instead of being forwarded to CPIO (and further transferred vide CCAMA/R/T/22/00005)...."
FAA's order, dated 05.08.2022 and 10.08.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO with the following observations:
"I have gone through the case. I would like to inform you that your RTI application was transferred by the Department of Legal affairs to Department of Agriculture and farmers Welfare and the CPIO, Drought Management Division, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare has already deposed Of your RTI request Stating that the requisite information is not available in Drought management Division."
CIC/MAGRI/A/2022/651871 5 Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 seeking the following information:-
"Copy of Department of Legal Affairs opinion dated 15/06/06 (Dy.no.1291/DRM/JS&IA dt. 24.5.05 issued by Shri D. It Meena, Joint Secretary & GC, Advice B Section to Ministry of Agriculture in the matter of the Indian Peoples Famine Trust) was provided to me in RTI process by o/o Chief Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Agriculture (CCAMA). With reference thereto, and enclosing copy thereof, I had a made further request to that office in response to which I was provided copy of letter dated 14/06/06 (No. IPNCT/AGRI/2005-06/232 of Shri U. C. Pant, CCAMA, to Shri D. R. Meena, Legal Adviser, M/o Law & Justice) seeking the opinion that was provided vide Department of Legal Affairs letter dated 15/06/06.
Copy of the said CCAMA letter dated 14/06/06, which mentions prior letters dated 20/05/05 and 10/08/05, is ATTACHED.
The remainder of my further request to CCAMA of was transferred through Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare to the Department of Legal Affairs vide No. MOLAW/R/T/22/00105 dated 24/03/22 to provide the information for the following points:
2. All of any prior and subsequent references made to seek legal opinion in the matter,
3. All of any prior or subsequent legal opinions received in the matter,
4. (w.r.t second paragraph of the Legal Opinion, saying that the Trust was vested in the Treasurers of Charitable Endowments appointed under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (the Act)) all items under the Act related to the Trust from time of its first vesting in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments till the time of its closure in 2015...
Department of Legal Affairs had made transfer dated 20/04/22 to CCAMA. The information has not been forthcoming pursuant to that. I therefore applied to o/o Treasurer of Charitable Endowments for India in the Department of Economic Affairs. I have been informed that the Indian Peoples Famine Trust was not vested in that Treasurer.6
In context of the foregoing, I again request the information held by Department of Legal Affairs for the above-listed three points that were transferred to it vide MOLAW/R/T/22/00105 dated 24/03/22 and / or (a) the particulars of the Treasurer of Charitable Endowments in whom the Indian Peoples Famine Trust was vested under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, and (b) information by way of basic description of records related to the Indian Peoples Famine Trust held in Department of Legal Affairs / examined for its opinion dated 15/06/06."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant/complainant on 19.07.2022 stating as under:-
"Information pertains to this office has already been provided. The matter is exclusively dealt by Drought Division of Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare for any further information related to matter may be contact to Division."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2022 stating inter alia;
"GROUNDS:
Reply bears no relation either to section 7(1) of the RTI Act or to my request and makes incorrect / misconceived remarks: a) The unspecified DOAFW office on whose behalf Reply is provided has never provided me information about IPFT / IPNCT. Information provided earlier was all provided only by CCAMA. b) My request for INFORMATION HELD BY DOLA exclusively concerns DOLA and my only cause to contact anyone else is for return of DOLA transfers to DOLA, as already requested on 09/07/22 in appeal No. DOA&C/A/E/22/00181 to DM Division FM and in email to CCAMA officers."
FAA's order, dated 30.08.2022 held as under:-
"I am to refer to your above mentioned Appeal and Requests for information under RTI Act 2005 and to say that Point wise reply to the above mentioned RTIs is as Under:-
RTI Appeal No. DOA&C/A/E/22/00187 This office was looking alter the accounts matter of the Indian Peoples Natural Calamity Trust and all the sought information which was available/traced out regarding accounts matters have already been 7 provided vide letters No. PAG/Agri/Sectt-1/comp/RT1/2021-22/682 to 684 dated 21-02-2022. PAG/Agri/Seett-1/comp/RTI/202 I - 22/762-764 dated 23-03-2022. PAO/Agri/Sectt-1/comp/RTI/2021-22/783-85 dated 30-03- 2022, and PAO/Agri/Sectt-1/comp/RT1/2021-22/76-79 dated 28-04-2022.
It is once again informed that administrative matters of IPNCT was dealt in by Honorary Secretary to IPNCT i.e. Additional Secretary (Disaster Relict). Govt. of India and the administrative work of the trust was done by Draught Management Division. Ministry of Agriculture. Disclosure of information in respect of administrative matters may be directly sought from Under Secretary. Draught Management Division. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare"
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal(s) and Complaint(s). The grounds raised by the Appellant/Complainant case wise are reproduced below in verbatim -
In case file no. CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/646290:
"BACKGROUND:
A Disaster Management (DM) Division exists in M/o Home Affairs. Its website says it is 'Nodal' Division for DM and lists 'Responsibilities'. Neither those 'Responsibilities' nor 'Nodal' DM function is reflected in the Allocation of Business Rules(AOBR) made by President. On 16/01/22 I had applied to M/o Home Affairs for copies of orders by which its DM Division was created, made 'Nodal' and assigned its 'Responsibilities'. The information was not forthcoming from M/o Home Affairs. Matters are pending in F. Nos. CIC/MHOME/A/2022/622226 and CIC/MHOME/C/2022/633904.
In AOBR calamity relief subjects are allocated since 1969 to Ministries of Finance, Agriculture, Health and Home. Finance Commissions reports show that M/o Agriculture was coordinating nonexpenditure matters till 2002. On 27/03/22 I applied to D/o Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare (DAFW) to know if a DM Division / Nodal Division for DM existed in M/o Agriculture before 2002 and, if it did, for copies of orders by which it and its predecessor offices were created.
DAFW Drought Management Division CPIO informed that prior to 2002 M/o Agriculture had a Natural Disaster Management (NDM) Division. Meanwhile, I had 8 seen a GOI report that said a Scarcity Relief Division was set up in M/o Agriculture after Independence and later re-named NDM Division. In 1st appeal I requested to be informed about that predecessor office. FAA's decision dated 26/04/22 informed that the orders for creating the NDM and its predecessor offices are not available in Drought Management Division, that Departmental restructuring concerns O&M/PG Division and that my appeal was being forwarded to its FAA for appropriate action. Upon receiving no communication from DAFW O&M/PG Division, I made to it RTI request dated 21/06/22. The present Appeal u/s 19(3) is in the matter of my request No. DOA&C/R/E/22/00982. I am approaching u/s 18 in the matter of DAFW's Request registration No. DOA&C/R/E/22/00982/1.
FACTS:
1. On 21/06/22 I made online request No. DOA&C/R/E/22/00982. Enclosing DAFW Drought Management Division FAA's decision dated 26/04/22 and my appeal dated 04/04/22 that it had forwarded to DAFW O&M/PG Division FAA and requested as under:
Please provide copies of the orders by which the Scarcity Relief Division was created, subsequently assigned work relating to various natural calamities, and later renamed as the Natural Disaster Management Division. Please also inform the Departments / Wings under which the said Division was placed at various times and whether it was at any time designated Nodal Division. Request Form and supporting document contents are reproduced in 'Copy of RTI Application'.
2. CPIO (O&M/PG) informed that "the orders by which Scarcity Relief Division was created are not traceable in O&M/PG Section" in letter dated 29/06/22, uploaded for 'Copy of CPIO Reply'.
3. On 02/07/22 I filed appeal No. DOA&C/A/E/22/00177 on the following grounds:
Response dated 29/06/22 is INCOMPLETE, referring only to orders creating Scarcity Relief Division, whereas my request refers also to orders by which that Division was assigned work relating to natural calamities, renamed NDM Division, designated Nodal Division etc. It is also PERFUNCTORY - because the relevant records cannot be untraceable, being part of history of the existing Drought Management Division in MoA, the existing DM Division in MHA, and of DM initiatives of GOI since Independence (i.e., records fit for permanent preservation). Files may have been recorded and / or transferred in 2002 and would be traceable from lists made by Departmental Records Officer under the Public Records Act- 1993 and / or lists prepared in 2002 as per procedure laid down in CSMOP for transfer of records.9
I requested that "CPIO take all necessary assistance u/s 5(4) to trace the relevant files and provide to my either the requested copies or the particulars of the files and the offices currently holding them". Printout of Appeal Form and RTI Online email are reproduced in 'Copy of First Appeal'.
4. On 03/08/22 O&M/PG Division FAA decided to not decide my 1st appeal dated 02/07/22 u/s 19 and to, instead, "transfer" it to Drought Management Division FAA. Status Form showing 'FIRST APPEAL TRANSFERRED TO OTHER FAA' is uploaded for 'Copy of Order'. Drought Management Division FAA has again informed by letter dated 22/08/22 that subject matter of my request concerns O&M/PG Division. By that letter my appeal dated 02/07/22 to O&M/PG FAA has been 'disposed of' on RTI Online. Printouts are reproduced in 'Supporting Document-1'.
GROUNDS:
RTI Act has no provision for "transfer" of appeal u/s 19(1) and requires, u/s 19(6), that an appeal u/s 19(1) "shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing". The "transfer" on 03/08/22 and "disposal" on 22/08/22 of my appeal dated 02/07/22 are de hors the RTI Act. My appeal u/s 19(1) to DAFW O&M/PG Division FAA has NOT been disposed of. DAFW has is falsely registered it otherwise on RTI Online MIS, leaving me to pursue u/s 19(3) decision on the grounds of my first appeal for the desired information."
In case file no. CIC/DOA&C/C/2022/646291:
"CONTEXT:
In a prior RTI matter, D/o Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare (DAFW) Drought Management Division FAA had informed that orders creating a Natural Disaster Management Division and its predecessor offices since setting up of a Scarcity Relief Division in M/o Agriculture after Independence are not available in Drought Management Division, that O&M/PG Division is concerned with Departmental restructuring and that my 1st appeal dated 04/04/22 was forwarded to its FAA. Upon receiving no communication from O&M/PG Division, on 21/06/22 I made to it the following request No. DOA&C/R/E/22/00982:
Copies of the letter No. 23/06/2022-DM-I dated 26/04/22 and my appeal forwarded thereby to FAA (O&M/PG) are attached for ready reference.10
Please provide copies of the orders by which the Scarcity Relief Division was created, subsequently assigned work relating to various natural calamities, and later renamed as the Natural Disaster Management Division.
Please also inform the Departments / Wings under which the said Division was placed at various times and whether it was at any time designated Nodal Division. My request was forwarded to CPIO (O&M/PG) and also, as No. DOA&C/R/E/22/00982/1,to CPIO (DM).
This Complaint in the matter of DAFW's Request Registration No. DOA&C/R/E/22/00982/1. I am approaching u/s 19(3) in the matter of my request No. DOA&C/R/E/22/00982.
FACTS:
1. DAFW's Request Form No. DOA&C/R/E/22/00982/1 in my name is reproduced, with contents of its supporting document and Status Form of my request from which DAFW generated it, in 'Copy of RTI Application' (for want of suitable option for request registration outside section 6).
2. CPIO (O&M/PG) had decided my request by letter dated 29/06/22 saying that "the orders by which Scarcity Relief Division was created are not traceable in O&M/PG Section". On 01/07/22 CPIO (DM) disposed of DAFW's Request Registration by uploading the same letter with online Reply saying, "This pertains to O&M Division ...". Printouts are reproduced in 'Copy of CPIO Reply'.
3. In appeal No. DOA&C/A/E/22/00178 dated 02/07/22 I requested "only for any help / advice for accessing the information", enclosing my appeal for CPIO (O&M/PG) to "take all necessary assistance u/s 5(4) to trace the relevant files...".
Printouts are reproduced in 'Copy of First Appeal'.
4. DM Division FAA disposed of my appeal by letter dated 22/07/22 reiterating that the information concerns O&M/PG Division. Printouts are reproduced in 'Copy of Order'. By letter dated 22/08/22 DM Division FAA again reiterated the same and also disposed of my appeal against decision of CPIO (O&M/PG) pursuant to its "transfer". Printouts of the appeal transfer dated 03/08/22 and disposal dated 22/08/22 are reproduced in 'Supporting Document-1'.
GROUNDS:
A. I have cause for complaint u/s 18(1)(a) against Nodal Officer for: (i) obfuscating the forwarding to CPIO (O&M/PG) of my request by duplicating it for simultaneous forwarding to DM Division; and (ii) obstructing disposal of my appeal by O&M/PG Division FAA by illegally "transferring" it to DM Division. In this regard, it is pertinent that Nodal Officer and FAA are mixed up:11
• Shri Vijay Rajmohan, Director was FAA named in DM Division FAA's prior decision dated 26/04/22 and Nodal Officer named in Status Form showing forwarding of my request dated 21/06/22 to DM Division [both in 'Copy of RTI Application'];
• Shri A K Sinha, Deputy Secretary was FAA named in decision dated 29/06/22 of CPIO (O&M/PG) that DM Division CPIO reiterated [part of 'Copy of CPIO Reply'] and Nodal Officer named in Status Forms showing "transfer" to DM Division FAA of my appeal against decision of CPIO (O&M/PG) [part of 'Supporting Document- 1'].
B. I have cause for complaint u/s 18(1)(f) against DM Division CPIO and FAA for "disposing of" by telling me that the desired information concerns O&M/PG Division instead of rejecting at the threshold, respectively, the forwarding of my request to O&M/PG Division and the transfer of my appeal to O&M/PG Division FAA.
C. I have cause for complaint u/s 18(1)(b) against DAFW because I have been denied access to information from its records that fall in category of records fit for permanent preservation but are untraceable - i.e., on account of DAFW's non- compliance of section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act and of the Public Records Act 1993 etc. D. I have aggravated cause for complaint u/s 18(1)(f) against DAFW because it has created, in my name, a request that I have not made or paid fee for u/s 6(1) and used it to falsely "dispose of" my one request dated 21/06/22 twice u/s 7 and twice u/s 19 on RTI Online that will double-count it as case of information provided (because it was not duly refused) - i.e., my resort to section 6 has, instead of yielding the desired information, made me complicit in statistical fraud and in the misleading of public and Parliament through reporting of false data to CIC for its Annual Reports.
PRAYER:
I request the Commission to enquire into the legality and propriety of the generation and disposal by DAFW of its Request Registration No. DOA&C/R/E/22/00982/1 in my name."
In case file no. CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/651863, CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/651864, CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/651866, CIC/DOA&C/C/2022/651867, CIC/DOA&C/C/2022/651870 & CIC/MAGRI/A/2022/651871, grounds raised by the Appellant with common context and preface are as under :12
"CONTEXT: (Explanation of multiple matters) Indian People's Famine Trust [IPFT] was a public trust under the Charitable Endowments Act,set up in 1900 and wound up in 2015. M/o Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare (AFW) press release about its closure mentioned 'opinion of M/o Law & Justice'. I applied to DOAFW for copy. DOAFW transferred to Chief Controller of Accounts [CCAMA]. CCAMA provided opinion dated 15/06/06 of D/o Legal Affairs [DOLA]. I applied for further information to CCAMA. 3 out of 4 points were transferred via DOAFW to DOLA. DOLA transferred to CCAMA. CCAMA and DOAFW transferred back and forth. DOAFW informed information is not available/ traceable. I applied to D/o Economic Affairs [DOEA] Treasurer of Charitable Endowments for India [TCEI]. DOEA informed IPFT was not vested in TCE-I. Setting out the foregoing context, I made online request No. MOLAW/R/E/22/00500 dated 29/05/22 for IPFT information held by DOLA. No one else can provide the desired information and DOLA has evaded it. On RTI Online MIS, however, my request stands "transferred" 12 times and "disposed of" 6 times (by DOAFW, with NIL information): [RTI Online printouts reproduced in SUPPORTING DOCUMENT-1] xxx xxx xxx I am approaching against the registrations on RTI Online MIS of "transfers" and "disposals" impermissible under the RTI Act. This Appeal is regarding No. DOA&C/R/T/22/00377.
FACTS:
1. On 25/06/22 DOLA 'transferred' my request dated 29/05/22 No. MOLAW/R/E/22/00500 to DOAFW as No. DOA&C/R/T/22/00377. RTI Online transfer Form and email intimating transfer are reproduced in 'Copy of RTI Application'.
2. On 08/07/22, 20/07/2022 DOAFW CPIO (DM) 'disposed of' with online Reply:
"The requisite information is not available/traceable in the Drought Management Division, Department of Agriculture and farmers Welfare". Printout is uploaded for 'Copy of CPIO Reply'.
3. On 09/07/22, 20/07/2022 I filed online appeal No. DOA&C/A/E/22/00181, DOA&C/A/E/22/00189, requesting transfer back to DOLA. Printout is uploaded for 'Copy of First Appeal'.13
4. FAA (DM) disposed of my appeal by letter dated 05/08/22, 10/08/2022 No. 23/09/2022-DM-I saying that CPIO had already disposed of, uploaded for 'Copy of Order'.
GROUNDS:
A. DOLA's/ CCAMA's 'transfer' No. DOA&C/R/T/22/00377 dated 25/06/22, DOA&C/R/T/22/00412 dated 13/07/22 of DOAFW ' of application dated 29/05/22, 28/06/2022 is impermissible u/s 6(3) that mandates transfer "in no case later than five days". RTI Online registration of it is illegal and statistically false.
B. Request u/s 6 is to be disposed of u/s 7(1) by either providing the requested information or a reasons u/s 8 or u/s 9 for denying it. Reply containing neither is not decision u/s 7(1).
RTI Online 'disposed of' status of such reply is illegal and statistically false.
C. DOAFW had 'duplicated' No. DOA&C/R/T/22/00377 to transfer u/s 6(3) in whole (vide No. CCAMA/R/T/22/00005) and also to dispose of u/s 7(1). A request cannot be both transferred u/s 6(3) and disposed of u/s 7(1). The dual registration / double counting on RTI Online MIS is legally flawed and statistically false.
D. RTI Online MIS is source of the RTI statistics that are reported to Parliament and public in Annual Reports of the Commission u/s 25.
PRAYER:
I request setting aside the "disposed of" status of RTI Online No. DOA&C/R/T/22/00377 and direction to DOAFW and /or DOPT that owns RTI Online to expunge it from RTI Online MIS."
The written submission filed by the Appellant/ Complainant in case file no. CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/646290 & CIC/DOA&C/C/2022/646291 wherein she inter alia stated as under -
2. My Complaint seeks only inquiry u/s 18. I do not know why Notice of Hearing has been issued for it. Copy of the request regarding it that I have submitted is enclosed.
3. My 2nd Appeal is for information of "the orders by which the Scarcity Relief Division was created, subsequently assigned work relating to various natural calamities, and later renamed as the Natural Disaster Management Division" and "the Departments / Wings under which the said Division was placed at various times and whether it was at any time designated Nodal Division". The request was made in the background set out in 2nd Appeal:
xxx xxx xxx 14 Main facts of the case are that:
• The information sought is from permanent records and request u/s 6(1) dated 21/06/22 was for response to the forwarding to FAA (O&M/PG) by FAA (DM) in a previous matter.
• My request u/s 6(1) was additionally registered for forwarding also to DM Division. CPIO (O&M/PG) gave partial nil decision. Appeal to FAA (O&M/PG) was 'transferred' to DM Division. Decisions of DM Division CPIO & FAA pointed to O&M/PG Division.
• As shown in Ground A, Nodal Officer and FAA (O&M/PG) were the same, i.e., FAA may have evaded by forwarding (as Nodal Officer) to DM Division. The case primarily concerns Nodal Officer / FAA (O&M/PG) and I have named the PA through Nodal Officer respondent.
2. I am perplexed by the NOTICE OF HEARING FOR APPEAL/COMPLAINT because:
a) It is, in general, contrary to Judgment dated 12/12/2011 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 (Chief Information Commissioner & Another. vs State of Manipur) that makes clear that sections 18 and 19 are not interchangeable.
"35. ... the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure...;
"37. ... Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other.b) It is issued in the instant case to, besides me, only "THE CPIO ... DROUGHT MANAGEMENT DIVISION ..." whereas CPIO (DM) has minimal role in my case that, in any case, does not concern any unnamed CPIO - because it has no prayer for information, no prayer for penalty, and no prayer for any direction to any CPIO.
3. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court was in a case in which information was sought and allowed u/s 18(1)(f). It did not concern itself with complaints that seek only inquiry. From plain reading of the Act, I understand that I have a right corresponding to the Commission's duty u/s 18(1) "to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person" having cause u/s 18(1), that the duty "to receive" is presumably discharged as part of the functions of the Central Registry, and that the duty "to inquire" apparently includes: o the Commission's scrutiny / preliminary inquiry u/s 18(1) (to decide u/s 18(2) if it "is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter"), o the Commission's decision u/s 18(2) (to initiate or not initiate the inquiry that it "may"15
initiate u/s 18(3) if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds), and the Commission's inquiry, if initiated, u/s 18(3) (presumably by the procedures and forms prescribed in the Code from which powers are vested u/s 18(3)). From NOTICE OF HEARING FOR APPEAL/COMPLAINT that does not disclose the provision of law under which it is issued, I am unable to locate where my case has reached in the procedure u/s 18 (current processes for which are also not found on CIC website).
4. In 2022-2023 CIC NOTICE OF HEARING FOR APPEAL/COMPLAINT has been issued to me for 4 of my Complaints (all with prayer purely for inquiry). Each time I have requested decision u/s 18(2), to no avail. Twice combined order has been issued on my Complaint and a 2nd Appeal of mine and my requests to the Registrar for separate orders are pending. Now, therefore, I request - besides decision u/s 18(2) (based on my understanding of the RTI Act) -separate decision on my Complaint, i.e., not combining my Complaint seeking only inquiry with my Appeal seeking information (in view of Judgement dated 12/12/2011 of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011)."
Also, a consolidated written submission has been filed by the Appellant/ Complainant for case files no. CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/651863, CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/651864, CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/651866, CIC/DOA&C/C/2022/651867, CIC/DOA&C/C/2022/651870 & CIC/MAGRI/A/2022/651871 wherein she , inter alia, stated as under -
"....2. The 6 cases listed are among 7 arising from my one request to D/o Legal Affairs [DOLAF] in the context stated therein as under:
"Copy of Department of Legal Affairs opinion dated 15/06/06 (Dy.no.1291/DRM/JS&LA dt. 24.5.05 issued by Shri D. R. Meena, Joint Secretary & GC, Advice B Section to Ministry of Agriculture in the matter of the Indian Peoples Famine Trust) was provided to me in RTI process by o/o Chief Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Agriculture (CCAMA). With reference thereto, and enclosing copy thereof, I had a made further request to that office in response to which I was provided copy of letter dated 14/06/06 (No. IPNCT/AGRI/2005- 06/232 of Shri U. C. Pant, CCAMA, to Shri D. R. Meena, Legal Adviser, M/o Law & Justice) seeking the opinion that was provided vide Department of Legal Affairs letter dated 15/06/06. Copy of the said CCAMA letter dated 14/06/06, which mentions prior letters dated 20/05/05 and 10/08/05, is ATTACHED. The remainder of my further request to CCAMA of was transferred through Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare to the Department of Legal 16 Affairs vide No. MOLAW/R/T/22/00105 dated 24/03/22 to provide the information for the following points:
2. All of any prior and subsequent references made to seek legal opinion in the matter,
3. All of any prior or subsequent legal opinions received in the matter,
4. (w.r.t second paragraph of the Legal Opinion, saying that the Trust was vested in the Treasurers of Charitable Endowments appointed under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (the Act)) all items under the Act related to the Trust from time of its first vesting in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments till the time of its closure in 2015...
Department of Legal Affairs had made transfer dated 20/04/22 to CCAMA. The information has not been forthcoming pursuant to that. I therefore applied to o/o Treasurer of Charitable Endowments for India in the Department of Economic Affairs. I have been informed that the Indian Peoples Famine Trust was not vested in that Treasurer.
Information sought is that for which transfer was earlier made to DOLAF "and/or (a) the particulars of the Treasurer of Charitable Endowments in whom the Indian People's Famine Trust was vested under the Charitable Endowments Act 1890 and (b) ... description of records related to Indian People's Famine Trust held... / examined for its legal opinion dated 15/06/06".Prayer for information is made in 2nd Appeal No. CIC/DOLAF/A/2022/651885, not yet listed.
The 6 cases listed have no prayer for information because all decisions conveyed that none (other than that already provided by o/o CCA) is available/traceable. If traced / become available since August 2022, I request particulars of the Treasurer in whom IPFT was vested and any IPFT-related notifications under the CE Act 1890.
3. The 6 cases listed are against 6 nil "disposals" of 12 impermissible "transfers"
(tabulated in the common prefatory explanation for multiple cases). Prayer in each is for setting aside the "disposal" and having the "transfer" expunged. The issue at the heart of these cases is of inconsistencies between RTI Online and RTI Act. The Commission recently decided my prayer for expunging in cases about a different inconsistency (viz., the facility for the PA to register a receipt multiple times) as under:
Similarly, the Commission finds no merit in dragging the argument against multiple registration of her RTI request by NITI AYOG, as it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant has got her point noted, the point is well taken and NITI AYOG is advised to look into the same to avoid recurrences of similar nature unless the same is unavoidable by virtue of the modalities of the RTI online portal. In this regard, FAA, RTI Nodal Cell, NITI AYOG is advised to 17 take note of the Appellant's following submission for adopting corrective measures as applicable:
"If NITI Aayog's RTI MIS account is compromised by "technical error/system error" then its quarterly returns are also compromised. I pray now, in view of CPIO's written submissions, for direction u/s 19(8)(a)(iv) r/w 25(3)(a)&(b) to NITI Aayog to make necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance of its RTI MIS account so as to keep true record of RTI receipts and disposals, including by purging all erroneous entries including Nos. PLCOM/R/X/22/00023/2, 5 & 8."
The above observations dispose of File Nos. CIC/NITIA/A/2022/648146 + 653650 + 653651.
I request reply to my grounds [reproduced on the enclosed single page, for ready reference].
If you concur with / do not contest my grounds, I seek to know only if the transfers and disposals impermissible under RTI Act can be expunged from the RTI Online MIS. If - by virtue of modalities of the RTI Online portal - they are unavoidable / cannot be expunged, I have nothing more to say. The mandates unavoidably compromised are u/s 25(1) & (2) and these 6 cases are yours to plead as you see fit in CIC."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant/Complainant: Present in person.
Respondent no. 1: Vijay Soni, U.S. & CPIO along with Sunil Kumar, U.S. & CPIO present in person.
Respondent no. 2: Represented by Nawin Kumar Karna, AAO present in person.
The written submission filed by the Respondent no. 2 in case file no. CIC/MAGRI/A/2022/651871 prior to hearing is also taken on record.
The Appellant/Complainant during the hearing invited attention of the bench towards the facts and figures stated by her in the above-mentioned written submissions and Complaint/Second Appeal. She further contested regarding a previous hearing conducted before the co-ordinate bench a day before against the National Archives of India wherein the Appellant/ Complainant challenged the 18 administrative action of the concerned Respondent in facilitating the information/ letter of 2016 when it was not part of said Public Authority. Here, it is notable that such arguments of the Appellant/ Complainant have no bearing with the facts and circumstances of the instant matter.
After exchange of words with the parties and more specifically with the narrating of statements by the Appellant/ Complainant, the bench is at a loss to comprehend her exact discontentment except the only issue regarding multiple transfer of impugned RTI Applications more particularly w.r.t. case files no. CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/651863, CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/651864, CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/651866, CIC/DOA&C/C/2022/651867, CIC/DOA&C/C/2022/651870 & CIC/MAGRI/A/2022/651871.
The CPIOs submitted that reply in each case has already been provided to the Appellant/Complainant. He furthermore added that despite putting all possible efforts , records of information sought were not traceable; thus, the Appellant/ Complainant was informed accordingly.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset finds no reason to take any action against the CPIOs for alleged multiple transfer of impugned RTI Applications to various Public Authorities under Section 6(3) of RTI Act, in the absence of any malafide intent on their part. In this regard, attention of the Appellant/ Complainant may be drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."19
Now, coming to relief of information sought by the Appellant/ Complainant is concerned in instant matter, it is observed from a close scrutiny of records that the queries raised by the Appellant/ Complainant in the form of all or any of the prior legal opinion in subsequently case files no. CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/651863, CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/651864, CIC/DOA&C/A/2022/651866, CIC/DOA&C/C/2022/651867, CIC/DOA&C/C/2022/651870 & CIC/MAGRI/A/2022/651871 is vague and indeterminate which do not even conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
Here, for better understanding the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant/Complainant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, her attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was 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.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....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 20 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...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds no infirmity in the factual response of the CPIO intimating non-availability of records, as the same were found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to compile information as per the desire of the appellants under the ambit of the RTI Act, as the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to them.
Nonetheless, upon insistence of the Appellant and in the spirit of RTI Act, the Commission directs the CPIOs to make one more exercise to trace their office records from the concerned record holder and provide a revised categorical reply 21 intimating the factum of availability or non-availability of records of information sought against each RTI Application in question.
The above said revised replies should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant/Complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeals/complaints are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स$यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 22