Central Information Commission
Ravi Gupta vs Ministry Of Urban Development on 4 October, 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/MOURB/A/2018/117541-BJ
Mr. Ravi Gupta
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Regd. Office: B.M.T.C. Complex, 3rd Floor
K H Road, Shanthinagar, Bangalore - 560027
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.10.2019
Date of Decision : 04.10.2019
Date of RTI application 03.10.2015
CPIO's response 01.03.2016
Date of the First Appeal 12.02.2016
First Appellate Authority's response 07.04.2016
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 19.03.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the copy of the Award prepared by the two erstwhile Arbitrators namely Sri P K Sanal Kumar and K Ramadoss, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 01.03.2016 while providing a detailed clarifications informed that the information sought was not available with them. However, the copies of letter correspondence made by Shri Vivek Chaurasia were enclosed for Appellant's kind perusal. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 07.04.2016 stated that the applications, appeals etc. before the Public Authority viz BMRCL with regard to the information pertaining to above issues was relating to another Public Authority and that the same could not be entertained by them and hence the First Appeal preferred by the Appellant was not considered.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 5
Appellant: Mr. Ravi Gupta through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Padmaraju, PIO & Mgr. through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought had not been received by him. In its reply, the Respondent explained that the records sought in respect of the Award prepared by the two erstwhile Arbitrators was in respect of the task carried out at Southern Railway and therefore they do not possess any records. The individual referred to by the Appellant was also contacted who denied availability of any such records. The Appellant maintained that the Southern Railway had directed him to approach Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 23.09.2019, wherein while narrating the background of the case at the outset it was submitted that the information sought for by the Applicant did not pertain to BMRCL. The applicant had addressed a letter to DGM (Signal), BMRCL (who was not a designated PIO in BMRCL nor in Southern Railways) seeking certain information from him with regard to certain Arbitration proceedings pertaining to Southern Railway (Central Government Organization) where Shri Vivek Chaurasia, DGM (Signal), BMRCL, was one of the members of 3 member Arbitral Tribunal, before he assumed charge as DGM (Signal), BMRCL on deputation from Indian Railways. In fact, the very application by the applicant dated 03.10.2015 shows that Shri Vivek Chaurasia, DGM (Signal) in BMRCL was the Arbitrator nominated in Arbitral Tribunal but wrongly mentioned him as PIO, BMRCL. The Arbitration dispute pertained to Southern Railways and that it was not related to BMRCL in any manner. As such, the Appeal was not maintainable against Shri Vivek Chaurasia, DGM (Signal), BMRCL and PIO, BMRCL hence the same may be dismissed. It was further informed that the Appellant in this case had also filed a Second Appeal before the Karnataka State Information Commission in 2017 and the same was dismissed with a direction to Appeal before Central Information Commission, since this subject matter pertained to Central Government Organization i.e. Southern Railways and did not come under the jurisdiction of Karnataka State Information Commission. Therefore, it was humbly submitted that the Appeal as brought by the Appellant was not maintainable either in law or on facts and was devoid of merits. Hence, it was most respectfully prayed to Commission to dismiss the Appeal as not maintainable, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
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 ........"Page 2 of 5
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, 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:
Page 3 of 5"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 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.
Page 4 of 5DECISION:
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. The Appellant was advised to approach the Southern Railway for the necessary records held in their custody.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
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: 04.10.2019
Page 5 of 5