Central Information Commission
Raju P. Amlani vs Department Of Revenue on 12 July, 2022
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/DOREV/A/2020/687765 +
CIC/DOREV/A/2020/691345
Raju P. Amlani ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Revenue,
RTI Cell, R&I Section,
North Block, New Delhi-110001. .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07/07/2022
Date of Decision : 07/07/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Appeals have been clubbed for decision as these are
based on a similar RTI Application.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22/05/2020 & 02/06/2020
CPIO replied on : 27/05/2020 & 01/07/2020
First appeal filed on : 02/06/2020 & 10/07/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 03/07/2020 & 04/08/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01/10/2020 & 03/11/2020
1
CIC/DOREV/A/2020/687765
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.05.2020 seeking the following information:
"The CPIO's vide letter F.No.R-20011/04/2020 Ad-ED dated 18.5.2020{ in response to my RTI Application Request No. DOREV/R/E/20/00971 dated 8.5.2020} has intimated that the Order of First Appellate Authority Vide Order F.No.R-20011/159/2019-AD.E.D dated 6.2.2020 was dispatched to me on 6.2.2020 at the following address:
Raju P. Amlani House No.863 Sector 31 Gurugram
2. In view of the above, it is requested that I may kindly be provided the following information under R.T.I. Act 2005:
(i) The letter containing Order F.No.R-20011/159/2019-Ad.ED. dated 6.2.2020 on which date it was received in R&I Section for dispatch from A.D. ED Section.
(ii) As per dispatch register of R&I at which addressed, the above letter was dispatched.
(iii) As per dispatch register of R&I on which date it was dispatched.
(iv) How the above letter was dispatched whether ordinary post/register post or speed post."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 27.05.2020 annexed the copy of Peon Book details of AD ED, Department of Revenue and Diary Register of R&l (D) Section. Department of Revenue.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.06.2020. FAA's order dated 03.07.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/DOREV/A/2020/691345 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.06.2020 seeking the following information:
"With reference to your reply dated 27th May, 2020 uploaded on RTI portal on 2.6.2020 in response to my RTI Application No. DOREV/R/E/20/011 dated 2 22.05.2020, it is requested that I may kindly be provided further information in response to your reply dated 27.5.2020:
(i) Whether the R&I(D) as per their records had dispatched any letter from F. No. R-20011/159/2019-AD.ED during the period from 6.2.2020 to 15.2.2020 which was addressed to Raju P. Amlani, House No.863, Sector 31, Gurgaon 122003.
(ii) As per dispatch register of R&I on which date it was dispatched.
(iii) How the above letter was dispatched whether ordinary post/register post or speed post."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 01.07.2020 stating as follows:-
(i) "Yes.
(ii) The above letter had dispatched in the address of Raju P. Amlani House No. 863 Sector 31 Gurugram dated 07.02.2020 (R&I dispatch register copy annexed)
(iii) The above letter dispatched in Ordinary Post."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.07.2020. FAA's order dated 04.08.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: Rakesh Kumar, Under Secretary and CPIO(GAR) present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant lamented about the lackadaisical manner of the Respondent office in dealing with postal correspondences and RTI documents and resorting to manipulation of despatch records. He further submitted on the same lines as that of his written submissions placed on record stating as under:
"(i) In response to my above mentioned RTI application, the CPIO vide O.M.F.No.R- 20011/04/2020-Ad.ED dated 18th May, 2020 in the portal had confirmed that the RTI appeal had been disposed on 6th February, 2020 and sent 3 to House No.863, Sector 31,Gurugram. It is further intimated that staff of Director (Hq) has been entrusted with the work relating to uploading of RTI appeals in RTI portal. As per authentic information available with me, the RTI order dated 6.2.2020 was issued by ordinary post at wrong address intentionally. It was also intentionally not upload on the RTI portal as part of manipulative trick.
(j) Since there was cutting in my address, I sought further information from the CPIO/U.S. R&I to confirm the facts as per details given below in view of reply from CPIO(Ad.ED). In my RTI application while addressing it CPIO R&I I had also intimated the following to CPIO (R&I) 'The CPIO A.D.(ED) vide letter F.No.R-20011/04/2020 Ad-ED dated 18.5.2020{in response to my RTI Application Request No. DOREV/R/E/20/00971 dated 8.5.2020} has intimated that the Order of First Appellate Authority Vide Order F.No.R-20011/159/2019- AD.E.D dated 6.2.2020 was dispatched to me on 6.2.2020 at the following address:
Raju P. Amlani House No.863 Sector 31 Gurugram In view of the above, CPIO R&I is requested that I may kindly be provided the following information under R.T.I. Act 2005:
(i)The letter containing Order F.No.R-20011/159/2019-Ad.ED.dated 6.2.2020 on which date it was received in R&I Section for dispatch from A.D. ED Section.
(ii) As per dispatch register of R&I at which addressed, the above letter was dispatched.
(iii)As per dispatch register of R&I on which date it was dispatched.
(iv)How the above letter was dispatched whether ordinary post/register post or speed post.' In response to my above mentioned RTI application, the CPIO (R&I), without application of his mind, it appears as per directions of Shri Vivek Mishra, CPIO Ad,ED sent the reply to the undersigned vide Dy.No.12/2020-SO(R&I-D) dated 27th May, 2020 . I had received the reply on 2nd June, 2020. He was supposed to upload the same on the portal on 27th May, 2020 but not uploaded the same for hiding the manipulative activities of the manipulators in consultation with Shri Vivek Mishra. I presume as per collaboration and mutual understanding both the Under Secretaries created/generated one speed post cover with F.No.A-
20011/159/2019-Ad.ED and put one letter dated 19th March, 2019 in that cover to mislead the undersigned with same file No. A copy of the reply given by the CPIO R&I is reproduced below:
4'Subject: Application under dated 22.5.2020 in response to information provided by CPIO AD ED vide Reference NO.; 20011/04- Ad.Ed dated 18.5.2020 regarding. I am directed to refer to your RTI application dated 22.05.2020 received vide O.M.No.A-20011/159/2019-AD ED dated 20.05.2020 was sent to you via Speed Post. The copy of Peon Book details of AD ED, Department of Revenue and Diary Register of R&I (D) Section, Department of Revenue is enclosed herewith for your reference.
2. Appeal, if any, may be filed with the First Appellate Authority, Shri Dinesh Boudh, Director(NC/ED), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Room No.48C, North Block, New Delhi-110001 within 30 days of receipt of letter."
Sd/- CPIO Copy to: The Under Secretary/CPIO AD-ED, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110001.' It may also be relevant to mention here that as per information available with me the order of the FAA was addressed intentionally at wrong address as well as it was sent by ordinary post at wrong address. The reply from CPIO R&I was only to mislead the undersigned by creating letter of another file with same file number to give an impression that the order was sent through speed post which clearly indicate the intention of CPIO Shri Vivek Mishra and staff of AD ED section.
From the above it is clear that the cover relating to O.M. F.No.A- 20011/159/2019-AD ED dated 20.5.2020 which was created/generated by US(Ad.ED)in consultation with U.S. GAR is not relevant with reference to my above mentioned RTI application. Moreover, I had asked the information about the letter F.No.R-20011/159/2019-Ad.ED dated 6.2.2020 not for the letter dated 20.5.2020 through my RTI application dated 22.5.2020. Moreover, the list of 10 letters indicating the details of Speed Post letters is also manipulated/forged to mislead the undersigned. For example letter mentioned at Sl. No.108 was booked on 2.6.20 as per speed post tracker No: ED496332864IN whereas letter to undersigned mentioned at Sl.No.103 as per speed post tracker No.ED496332816IN was booked on 20.5.20 and reached to me on 30.5.20.
The question arises how it was possible that the R&I can booked the letter on 2.6.2020 as per their dispatch list dated 20.5.2020. It is also interesting to note that U.S, GAR has also enclosed tracking sheet of speed post No.ED496332816IN in which three entries have been shown, two entries relate to 21st May 2020 and one relate to 20th May, 2020. In addition to above one sheet has also enclosed in which the date of updating India.gov web site has been given as 26th May, 2020. From the above, it is clear that the letter generated/created in respect of F.No. R- 20011/159/2019-Ad.ED which was mainly to protect manipulators of Ad.ED 5 Section and letter to me was issued in back date after my RTI application to U.S. GAR. It may also be relevant to mention here as per speed post tracker sheet enclosed by U.S. GAR, the created/generated letter reached to me in 10 days where as Speed post ED 496347930IN booked on 4.6.2020 at 18.20 hours which reached to me on 6.6.2020 at 13.00 hrs. at my residence which took less than three days. From the above it is clear that U.S. R&I had enclosed manipulated speed post sheet dated 20.5.2020 to mainly protect manipulators of A.D. ED Section."
The CPIO also relied on his written submissions sent prior to the hearing wherein it was submitted as under:
Further, the CPIO offered to provide inspection of whatever records related to the subject matter that the Appellant desires to allay his apprehensions.
Decision:
The Commission has heard and considered the contentions of the Appellant at length and empathises with the concerns raised by him, however, within the confines of the RTI Act, no scope of action is pertinent in the matter. In this regard, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:6
"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 fora. 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 cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was 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."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...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...." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the CPIO is directed to provide due assistance to the Appellant in pursuing the said grievance through appropriate channel. While a copy of this order is marked to the Joint Secretary (Revenue) to look into the serious allegations of the Appellant regarding tampering of postal records in the Respondent office.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 7 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Copy to:
Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue 46/North Block, New Delhi-110001
--(For taking note of the above decision) 8