Central Information Commission
Mr.Patel Dhirubhai vs Ut Of Andaman And Nicobar on 30 November, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002546/16036
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002546
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Patel Dhirubhai
Govt. Qtr. No. SP/90/Type - II,
Dispensary Road,
Shadipur, Port Blair - 744106
Respondent : Mr. D. K. Bhattarcharya
Public Information Officer & Executive Engineer (E&M) UT of Andaman & Nicobar O/o The Chief Engineer, Andaman Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, Port Blair, RTI application filed on : 15/03/2011 PIO replied on : 11/04/2011 First Appeal filed on : 13/04/2011 First Appellate Authority order of : 26/05/2011 Second Appeal received on : 14/09/2011 Sl. Information / document sought for Reply
1. The date wise action taken by APWD and A&N The present two representation submitted by Administration on my complaints dated you were not considered due to the pendency 10/12/2009 and dated 16/l0/2O1 of the write application bearing WPCT No. 18/11/2010 submitted 5 the Secretary (PWD) and 089 of 2009 (Union of M & Others -- Vs- Chief Engineer respectively submitted in my Patel Dhirubai) which was preferred by the representative capacity as a General Secretary of department against the judgment and order the Ambedkar Mission, Diglipur dated 14th September 2007 in OA No. 124/A&N/2004 (Shri Patel Dhirubhai-Vs-
Union of India & Others) In this regard it is further to be noted that the aforesaid writ application has been disposed of by virtue of judgment and order dated 30th August 2010, wherein the matter has again been remanded back to the Ld. Tribunal for adjudicating the matter a fresh. The same is still pending with the Ld Tribunal as and when the final judgment will be received from the Ld. Tribunal your representation will be dealt according to the direction of the Ld. Tribunal. Hence steps were not taken by the department on your representation on the ground that on the same subject matter is under litigation and pending before the Ld. Tribunal for Page 1 of 3 adjudication.
2. Based on my above two complaints indicate the Asking reasons are not covered in RTI Act.
writing reason for not cancelled or withdrawing CE's office order No. 863, 864 (both are dated 05/09/2009) O/o No. 201, 202 and 203 (all three are dated 26/02/2010 ) and also indicate the writing reason for not reverting the incumbent of JE (C) from Sl. No. 58 to 74 as list prepared by General Secretary, Ambekdar Mission, Diglipur which was Annexed-"A" with the complaint dated 16th October 2010 and also reason required for not reverting incumbent of D/Man Gr-Il (C) those, who are promoted by CE's Office order No. 203 dated 26/02/2010 because all are promoted against the posts/quota reserved for Scheduled Castes and quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe without any dereservation orders obtained from the competent authority by Group "C" DPC.
3. Indicate the writing reason for not filling up posts Asking reasons are not covered in RTI Act.
reserved for scheduled castes quota by promotion Regarding, any office order/ OM or letter method in various group of posts in APWD by issued for preventing for filling up reserved SC employee from the feeder cadre posts. If any posts of scheduled castes quota from the higher office order/ OM or letter issued for preventing authorities such office order/OM or letter's are for filling up reserved posts of scheduled castes not available quota from the higher authorities such office order/OM or letter's certified Xerox copy may kindly be furnished to me.
4. Date wise action taken by APWD and A&N Same as SL. No. 1.
Administration on my representation dated18/11/2010 submitted before the Chief Engineer and Secretary (PWD) for consideration of my promotion on regular basis w.e.f 15th November 1998 against reserved posts of scheduled tribes according to posts based roaster.
5. The indicate writing reason for not filling Asking reasons is not covered in RTI Act.
up reserved post of ST in the posts of D/Man Or- IT (C) on regular basis in APWD according to DOPT's OM No. 36012/2/96-Estt (Res) dated 02/07/ 1997
6. Indicate the writing reason for not conducted the Asking reason is not covered in RTI Act.
DPC for Group "C" post for grant of promotion of JE © and D/man Gr-II © between the period from 08th October 2007 to 27th March 2009
7. Indicate the writing reason for not granting my Asking reasons is not covered in RTI Act.
four increments from the date of 1 July 2007 to 1 July 2010 without any order of inquiry officers withhold the increments such reason may indicate please.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The appellant was received an unsatisfactory reply from the PIO.Page 2 of 3
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"the Appellant, Shri Patel Dhirubhai, R/o.Shadipur, Port Blair informed that the information received by him was not correct. Further, after examination, it was decided that the information sought by the appellant and which is readily available with this office will be furnished within one week by this office to him. Hence, the appeal has disposed off"
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The applicant is not satisfied with the PIO reply and unsatisfactory order was passed by the First Appellate Authority.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Patel Dhirubhai on video conference from NIC-Port Blair Studio; Respondent: Mr. D. K. Bhattarcharya, Public Information Officer & Executive Engineer (E&M) on video conference from NIC-Port Blair Studio;
The PIO appears to have given information available on the records. The Appellant appears to be seeking reasons which may not be on the records and contends that Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act mandates that the PIO must provide reasons even if they are not on the record. He states that the Commission in Decision No. 1146 /IC(A)/2007 (F. No. CIC/OK/A/2007/00377) Dated, the 20th August, 2007 has given such a decision as follows:
"3. Under Section 4(1) (d) of the Act, every public authority is expected to "provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons". In view of this, the decision of the CPIO and appellate authority to deny the information u/s 8(1) (e) of the Act is untenable. The CPIO is therefore directed to furnish the information sought for and inform the appellant the reasons for non-inclusion of his name in the list of promoted candidates within 15 working days from the date of issue of this decision."
The Commission notes that there are hundreds of decisions where the Commission has ruled that the PIO is expected to provide information which is available on record and no create information or give clarification or justification. The Commission therefore does not accept the plea of the Appellant that the PIO should provide his own reasons as sought by the Appellant.
The appellant would like to inspect the relevant records on 20 December 2011 from 10.30AM onwards at the office of the PIO. The PIO will facilitate an inspection of the records and given attested copies of any records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 100 pages.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the records by the Appellant on 20 December 2011 from 10.30AM onwards. The PIO will give attested copies of records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 100 pages. This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 30 November 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (BK)) Page 3 of 3