Central Information Commission
Saket Shrivastava vs Housing And Urban Development ... on 2 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/HUDCO/A/2023/138376
Saket Shrivastava .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Housing and Urban Development
Corporation Ltd, HUDCO Bhawan,
Core-7A, India Habitat Centre,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.12.2024
Date of Decision : 30.12.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.04.2023
CPIO replied on : NIL
First appeal filed on : 10.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 18.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.09.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.04.2023 (online) seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
"Background - Sh. S K Solanki, Regional Chief, Chandigarh Regional Office has been holding all medical bills of my parents, submitted for reimbursement since 17.05.2021.
Regional Chief, Chandigarh Regional Office has informed me that he has got order of competent authority for stopping the reimbursement of all medical bills of my parents, during CVD investigation.
When I requested him to provide certified copy of the above order he informed vide his e-mail dated 16/06/2022 (17:17) With reference to trailing mail communication of JGM(P)-SS, it is to inform that the said order is of confidential nature, therefore, can not be provided.
I represented many times against this argument of Regional Chief but Regional Chief refused to provide copy of the above order.
Information requested-
1. Please provide copy of order of the competent authority, communicated to Regional Chief, Chandigarh Regional Office, directed him to stop / keep on hold, reimbursement of medical bills of dependent parents of Saket Shrivastava, during CVD investigation.
2. Please provide copy of order of the competent authority, which directs Regional Chief, Chandigarh Regional Office, for not sharing copy of said order (as referred at se, no. 1), with Shri Saket Shrivastava."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on NIL stating as under:
"The information is confidential in nature and the matter is under investigation, hence exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 18.05.2023, held as under:
"Considering your first appeal and reply/comments of CPIO, HUDCO on your RTI application. Further, no Information is provided by CPIO, HUDCO. The letter is uploaded. Your appeal is disposed of."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 2 of 6A written submission dated 17.12.2024 filed by the respondent is taken on record. Relevant contents of the same are reproduced below:
"....IV. Thus, as an investigation by Corporate Vigilance Department (CVD) of HUDCO on the issue of "Dependency" status of the Parents of Appellant Shri Saket Shrivastava was under progress, on the advice of CVD vide IOM dt. 17- 01-2023, all pending and future medical claim in respect of Parents of Shri Saket Shrivastava was withheld by HUDCO Regional Office, Chandigarh. As the matter was under investigation by the vigilance Department of HUDCO, the information applied for by Shri Saket Shrivastava was not disclosed to him invoking the exemption u/s 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
V. However, after the conclusion of the investigation, the CVD, HUDCO vide its IOM dt. 23-12-2022 (Annexure-VII) advised the HR Department of HUDCO, that there are some ambiguities in the relevant Rule, and advised the HR Department to deal with the case of Shri Shrivastava, according to the appropriate interpretation of the relevant Rules. The relevant extract of the aforesaid advice of the CVD, HUDCO is reproduced as under:
"The present reference from RC-Chandigarh is being forwarded to HRMA wing in as much as the HRMA being the nodal department for formulating and declaring the policy/rules etc., with regard to Personnel and Administrative matter, they are best placed to decipher the true and real intent of these rules which are apparently ambiguous as discussed in para 4 herein before. The declaration made by Shri Saket Shrivastava (which appears to be based on First Interpretation as aforesaid) has been acted upon by the administration as is evident from the fact that he has been provided with the medical facilities for his dependent parents by HUDCO based on that declaration and therefore, it being administrative matter, the reference made by RC-Chandigarh needs to be looked into by HRMA in the light of the relevant circulars issued by them in 1995, 1999 and 2007 keeping in mind the real intent of these circulars. However, if during the course of their examination of this case, any vigilance angle is found, the matter may be referred back to the CVD.
The interim instruction issued by CVD vide IOM No. HUDCO/VIG- 642/2021/84 dated 17-01-2022 to RO, Chandigarh has been withdrawn with Page 3 of 6 the approval of CVO and the same has been informed to RO, Chandigarh vide CVD IOM dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure -VII) with a copy to ED(HRMA) and RO
- Chandigarh has been advised to take further necessary action in the matter in accordance with the extant rules and advice of the HRMA."
VI. Following the advice of the CVD, the HR Department of HUDCO examined the Case of Shri Saket Shrivastava and recommended for release of the Payment of his aforesaid pending medical bills vide Inter Office Memo dt. 15- 02-2024 (Annexure-VIII) VII. Accordingly, the pending medical bills of Dependent parents of Shri Saket Shrivastava has been paid by HUDCO by releasing total amount of Rs 5,62,949/- as per the details enclosed herewith. Details along with Payment Vouchers dt. 28-02-2024 and 23-03-2024 is enclosed as (Annexure IX).
VIII. Thus, initially the payment of medical bills of parents of Appellant Shri Saket Shrivastava was withheld as a vigilance inquiry in respect of "Dependency" status of his parents vis-a vis, the Medical Attendance Rules of HUDCO was in progress and after the Vigilance Enquiry found ambiguity in the Rules, the benefit of this ambiguity was given to Shri Saket Shrivastava and the pending medical bills of his parents were paid by HUDCO."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Shri M R Sharma, GM(Law)/CPIO along with Ms. Sangita Pratap, JGM(L)/CAPIO, Shri Ramesh Bhagat, Mgr. (IT RTI Cell), HUDCO, New Delhi present in person.
Dr. Deepak Bansal, the then CPIO, HUDCO, Jammu present through video- conference.
The Appellant contended that the information has been wrongly denied to him under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, initially as is evident from the fact that the investigation of CVD has already attained finality on 23.12.2022. He prayed the Page 4 of 6 Commission to penalize the respondent for alleged wilful denial of information.
Respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission stated that reply as per the RTI Act has already been provided to the appellant earlier, since the investigation was underway at the relevant time. However, upon conclusion with respect to interpretation of the Rules the reimbursement of appellant's bills was already settled. There was no mala-fide intent to obstruct the flow of information as alleged by the appellant.
Decision:
The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records notes that the core contention of the Appellant revolves around the issue of denial of information by the CPIO at the initial stage under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act. In response to which the CPIO clarified the factual position by explaining that issue/matter pertaining to information sought was under investigation with the Corporate Vigilance Department (CVD) and disclosure of requested information would impede the process of investigation; hence, the information cannot be shared with the Appellant that time in view of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the denial of information by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act in the first instance, as the contents of queries raised in itself shows that disclosure of such information would apparently impede the process of investigation in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"....(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;"
Nonetheless, since, the issue flagged by the appellant has appropriately been addressed by the respondent vide their revised reply dated 17.12.2024 as per the provisions of the RTI Act, hence, no scope of intervention remains in this matter.Page 5 of 6
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd, HUDCO Bhawan, Core-7A, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)