Central Information Commission
Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.) vs Department Of Health & Family Welfare on 7 September, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या/Complaint No.: CIC/MOHFW/C/2021/623204
Commodore Lokesh Batra ...शिकायतकताा/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
RTI, Administrative Officer-(RTI Section),
Central Medial Services Society
(Ministry of Health & Family Welfare),
2nd Floor, Vishwa Yuvak Kendra,
Pt. Uma Shankar Dikshit Marg,
Teen Murti Marg, Opposite Police Station,
Chanakya Puri, New Delhi-110021.
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Central Public Information Officer
Under Secretary & CPIO,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road,
New Delhi-110108.
...प्रशतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:
RTI application filed on : 28.04.2021
CPIO replied on : 15.06.2021
First appeal filed on : 15.06.2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Complaint received at CIC : 11.06.2021
Date of Hearing : 07.03.2022
Date of Decision : 07.03.2022
Date of Disposal of Show-Cause : 25.08.2022
सूचना आयुक्त: श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 13
Information sought:
The Complainant sought information:
• PIO, Central Medical Services Society, furnished reply, vide letter dated 15.06.2021, as under:Page 2 of 13
• Written submission has been received from Complainant, vide letter dated
02.03.2022, as under:
Page 3 of 13 Page 4 of 13 Page 5 of 13 Page 6 of 13 Page 7 of 13Grounds for Complaint:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Complainant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present.
Complainant: Represented by Adv. Prasanna S., present Respondent: Mr. R.C. Nayak, Nodal Officer, present.
Reptt. Of Complainant stated that relevant information was not furnished to him within the time frame stipulated under proviso of Section 7(1) of RTI Act, as the instant matter pertains to the life and liberty, in larger public interest.
He further stated that the information sought pertains to the time period during the second lockdown, with regards to oxygen generation plants, as sought in RTI Application, as there was acute shortage during the said period.
He also requested the Commission that information may be supplied to the Complainant under Section 19 of RTI Act. He also submitted a detailed written submission, vide letter dated 02.03.2022, for perusal before the Commission and duly taken on record. He further stated that relevant information, as furnished by the concerned PIO, is factually incorrect.
Upon Commission's instance, PIO submitted that relevant information, as available in their records, has been furnished to the Complainant, vide letter dated 15.06.2021. He further submitted that he would abide by the orders of Commission, if any.Page 8 of 13
Decision:
Commission, on the basis of perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that the instant Complaint was filed by the Complainant for violation of time frame stipulated under Proviso to Section 7(1) of RTI Act, 2005. The afore-mentioned section is read as under:
" (1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:
Provided that where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request."
Now, to put the observations of this bench into perspective, reference shall be had of a decision of a coordinate bench of the Commission in the matter of Pratap Kumar Jena vs. PIO, Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi in Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000814 on the aspect of life and liberty as under:
"Proviso of Section 7(1) states that where the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty- eight hours of the receipt of the request. This provision has to be applied only in exceptional cases and the norm is that information should be provided within thirty days from the receiving date. Whether the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person has to be carefully scrutinized and only in a very limited number of cases this ground can be relied upon. The government machinery is not designed in a way that responses to all RTI Applications can be given within forty-eight hours. A broad interpretation of 'life or liberty' would result in a substantial diversion of manpower and resources towards replying to RTI Applications which would be unjustified. Parliament has made a very special exception for cases involving 'life or liberty' so that it would be used only when an imminent threat to life or liberty is involved.
The life or liberty provision can be applied only in cases where there is an imminent danger to the life or liberty of a person and the non-supply of the information may either lead to death or grievous injury to the concerned person. Liberty of a person is threatened if she or he is going to be incarcerated or has already been incarcerated and the disclosure of the information may change that situation. If the disclosure of the information would obviate the danger then it may be considered under the proviso of Section 7(1). The Page 9 of 13 imminent danger has to be demonstrably proven. The Commission is well aware of the fact that when a citizen exercises his or her fundamental right to information, the information disclosed may assist him or her to lead a better life. But in all such cases, the proviso of Section 7(1) cannot be invoked unless imminent danger to life or liberty can be proven."
Adverting to the ratio laid down before, Commission observes that the instant RTI Application does not qualify as information within the proviso to Section 7(1) of RTI Act, 2005.
Furthermore, Complainant stated before the Commission that incorrect information has been furnished to him by the concerned PIO, vide letter dated 15.06.2021. In this context, reference may be had of a judgment of 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. 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) Nonetheless, Commission observes that the reply furnished by the concerned PIO, vide letter dated 15.06.2021, was not furnished within the time frame stipulated under Section 7(1) of RTI Act. Therefore, in view of that, the then PIO(s) are hereby directed to file a written explanation justifying the said conduct, failing which an action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act will be initiated against him/her, if necessary. The concerned PIO(s) are further directed to send copy of supporting documents on which he relies upon in his submission as well as copy of reply sent on the RTI Application, if any. In doing so, if any other persons are also responsible for the said conduct, the then PIO(s) shall serve a copy of this order on such other persons under intimation to the Commission and ensure that written submissions of all such concerned persons are sent to the Commission.Page 10 of 13
The said written submission of the then PIO(s) along with submissions of other concerned persons, if any, should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Also, Commission takes into consideration the averment of the Complainant regarding dissatisfaction towards the information provided to him and requested the Commission that a revised reply be furnished to him by the concerned PIO u/s. 19 of RTI Act. However, no relief can be ordered in the matter in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.2011 in Central Information Commissioner vs. State of Manipur wherein it was held as under:
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx Page 11 of 13 "37. We are of the view that 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...."
No further action lies.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Disposal of Show-Cause
Date of Order : 25.08.2022
• In compliance with the order of Commission, written submission has
been received from Mr. R.C. Nayak, PIO, (O/o. G.M.-Administration), CMSS, vide letter dated 13.04.2022, as under:
Page 12 of 13Final Decision:
Commission, upon perusal of the explanation furnished by the Noticee, is convinced that this is not a case of deliberate concealment or suppression of facts/information by the respondent.
In the absence of any deliberate concealment of information, the Commission finds that there is no necessity to penalize the Respondent. Accordingly, the penal proceedings initiated against the Noticee in this case- Sh. R.C. Nayak, is hereby dropped and any violation of the RTI Act condoned. The penalty proceedings are dropped. Noticee stands discharged.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानित सत्यानित प्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाि ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 13 of 13