Central Information Commission
R Balachandra Kamath vs Mumbai Debts Recovery Tribunal No.I on 28 June, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MDRTO/A/2023/115096
R Balachandra Kamath .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Debts Recovery Tribunal - 1,
2nd Floor, Telephone Bhawan,
Colaba, Mumbai -400005. .....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.06.2024
Date of Decision : 27.06.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.12.2022
CPIO replied on : 19.01.2023
First appeal filed on : 02.02.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 23.02.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31.03.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.12.2022 seeking the following information:
"The recovery of my salary and wages was a subject matter, in the Recovery Proceedings No. 213 of 2006, in the court of The Recovery officer II, DRT No. III Page 1 of 5 @ Mumbai. On 25/06/2015, Recovery officer II, DRT No. III Mumbai, Smt. A. A. Kurkarni, accepted, and admitted and had taken on record the claims of my pending salary and wages, as per the orders/ award of the Labour court. This case of recovery of my salary and wages was subsequently transferred to DRT NO. I @ MUMBAI. In the light of the above-mentioned background, please provide the following information under section 2(f) and 2 (j) of the RTI act:
1). The present status of my case, regarding the recovery of my salary and wages, INITIATED in the case number, Recovery Proceedings No. 213 of 2006, RO II, DRT NO.III @ MUMBAI, TRANSFERRED TO AND NOW PENDING IN THE COURT OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL NO I @ MUMBAI, (DRT No-1 @ MUMBAI).
2). Certified copy of the actions taken regarding the recovery of my salary and wages.
3). Names and designations of the officials who have considered my application during this period.
4). Please provide copies of file noting indicating the consideration of my application by the concerned officials.
5). Date by when action would be completed in my case."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.01.2023 stating as under:
"You have sought the information regarding present status of your case regarding recovery of salary etc. in R.P. No.213/2006 of DRT-III and transferred to DRT-1. Mumbai for final disposal.
It is intimated that DRT functions on the basis of RDDBFI Act, Rules and DRT Regulations made thereunder. Since there is already a disclosure mechanism in the said Act and Regulations; therefore, the requisite information/papers cannot be provided under RTI Act. Applicant is advised to approach the Registry of this Tribunal to obtain the requisite information / papers as per the guidelines mentioned in the RDDBFI Act, Rules made thereunder and DRT Regulation. "
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.02.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 23.02.2023, held as under: -
"The reply provided by the CPIO that "DRT functions on the basis of RDDBFI Act, Rules and DRT Regulations made thereunder. Since there is already a disclosure mechanism in the said Act and Regulations; the requisite information / papers cannot be provided under the RTI Act.Page 2 of 5
Applicant is advised to approach the Registry of this Tribunal to obtain the requisite information/papers as per the guidelines mentioned in RDDBFI Act, Rules made thereunder and DRT Regulations." was appropriate and in order.
In this regard, I concur with the reply given by the CPIO that information sought by the appellant does not fall under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 and rules, hence cannot be disclosed under RTI Act, 2005 and rules."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Ashu Kumar, CPIO, appeared through video conference.
The appellant inter alia submitted that desired information was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that DRT functions on the basis of RDDBFI Act, Rules and DRT Regulations made thereunder. They stated that since there is already a disclosure mechanism in the said Act and Regulations; therefore, the requisite information/papers cannot be provided under RTI Act. They had already advised the appellant to approach the Registry of Debt Tribunal to obtain the requisite information / papers as per the guidelines mentioned in the RDDBFI Act, Rules made thereunder and DRT Regulation.
The respondent offered to ascertain the case number of the appellant's case before DRT -I and provide to the appellant.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the appellant sought information regarding status of his case number, Recovery Proceedings No. 213 of 2006 and related issues. It may be noted that there being an alternative efficacious remedy and procedure available to access the Page 3 of 5 information from the DRT regarding the status of cases as per the guidelines mentioned in the RDDBFI Act, Rules made thereunder and DRT Regulation, the appellant should not overburden the CPIO under RTI Act. In Chief Information Commissioner Vs. High Court of Gujarat, the Supreme Court made the following observations:
"We do not find any merit in the above submission and that such cumbersome procedure has to be adopted for furnishing the information/certified copies of the documents. When there is an effective machinery for having access to the information or obtaining certified copies which, in our view, is a very simple procedure i.e. filing of an application/affidavit with requisite court fee and stating the reasons for which the certified copies are required, we do not find any justification for invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act and adopt a cumbersome procedure. This would involve wastage of both time and fiscal resources which the preamble of the RTI Act itself intends to avoid."
In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission observed that appropriate reply has been given by the respondent and interference of the Commission is not called for in this matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 4 of 5 Copy To:
The FAA, Debts Recovery Tribunal - 1, 2nd Floor, Telephone Bhawan, Colaba, Mumbai - 400005.Page 5 of 5
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)