Central Information Commission
Gita Dewan Verma vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 6 May, 2025
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
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2022/646279
Ms. Gita Dewan Verma ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Home Affairs
Date of Hearing : 26.03.2025
Date of Decision : 01.05.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.06.2022
PIO replied on : 18.07.2022
First Appeal filed on : 28.07.2022
First Appellate Order on (online) : 24.08.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 25.08.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.06.2022 seeking information on following points:-
1. All information liable to be made public u/s 4(1) of the RTI Act about the HLC - including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) For the HLC existing BEFORE 22/10/2009 that is described in para-3.3.3 of the National Policy approved by Union Cabinet on 22/10/2009: Copy of order / decision for its INITIAL constitution.
(b) For the HLC functioning AFTER 28/09/2010, when NDRF was constituted, copies of the orders / decisions empowering the HLC to: (i) approve the releases from the NDRF to States, and (ii) approve norms of assistance from NDRF as well as SDRF.
2. Details of the Web Information Manager of the website of DM Division that are not disclosed on its website https://ndmindia.mha.gov.in The CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs furnished reply dated 18.07.2022 as under:-
"Reply :- Available information is given hereunder:-
a) Para-8 of the Scheme for constitution and administration of the National Calamity Contingency Fund valid for 2005-06 to 2009-10 provides Composition of High Page 1 Level Committee (HLC) and its function, about release of funds from National Calamity Contingency Fund (NCCF) (now called National Disaster Response Fund -NDRF).
Copy of the scheme is available on our website ndmindia.mha.gov.in.
(b) The scheme for Constitution and Administration of NDRF is revised after acceptance of the recommendations of successive Finance Commissions. After acceptance of 12th FC recommendations, the Guidelines of Constitution and Administration of NDRF were issued on 28.09.2010. Para-8.1 of the Guidelines provides composition of HLC. A copy of the guidelines is available on website ndmindia.mha.gov.in."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.07.2022. The FAA vide order (online) dated 24.08.2022 (attachment dated 23.08.2022) upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 18.03.2023, 19.03.2025, 26.03.2025 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through audio-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Dy. Director, Department of Expenditure, Ms. Rita Mal, MHA, Mr. V.K. Gupta MHA, Admin, Mr. Ashish V Gawai, Director, DM, Division, MHA, Mr. C.S. Thakur, MHA. Mr. Pawan Kumar, Director, DM-II.
Written submissions received from the Appellant are taken on record for perusal.
The Appellant during hearing requested the Commission to consider averments made in her instant Second Appeal and written submission. The relevant extract of the written submission of the Appellant is as under:
"..2 nd Appeals above are for information of 'High Level Committee' about which MHA's DM Division's separate website states "HLC was constituted to approve financial assistance to disaster affected States from National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF)". That statement is contradicted by other website information. I applied to MHA on 27.01.22 for URL at which HLC information is published and copy of constituting order.
CPIO's Reply dt. 09.03.22 said HLC was constituted in 2010 [Encl.1]. Therefore: i. In request dt. 21.06.22 in F. No. CIC/MHOME/A/2022/646279 I gave URLs of contradicting website information and requested at point-1 "All information liable to be published u/s 4(1) of RTI Act about HLC - including, Page 2 but not limited to: (a) For the HLC existing BEFORE 22/10/2009 that is described in para-3.3.3 of the National Policy approved by Union Cabinet on 22/10/2009: Copy of order / decision for its INITIAL constitution. (b) For the HLC functioning AFTER 28/09/2010, when NDRF was constituted, copies of orders / decisions empowering HLC to: (i) approve the releases from NDRF to States, and (ii) approve norms of assistance from NDRF as well as SDRF." CPIO's Reply dt. 18.07.22 said HLC was constituted in 2005 [Encl.2]. FAA upheld by 'template' order dt. 24.08.22 and I filed 2nd Appeal dt. 25.08.22. Point no.2 of my request (for WIM particulars) was separately processed. In order dt. 28.02.23 on point-2, FAA reversed his order dt. 24.08.22 on point-1. CPIO's compliance letter dt. 13.03.23 said HLC re-constitution orders are available on the website under 'Important Letters' since 2002 [Encl.3]. FAA's order & CPIO's letter are in Link Paper dt. 18.03.23 D. No. 614207. I have submitted in it that: 6. 'Important Letters' link opens an index of 116 assorted letters. 6 relate to HLC. They are all Office Memoranda (dated 23-Jul-02, 21-Jun-04, 11-Jun-09, 18-Aug-12, 13-Jun-14 & 15-Jan-2015) that circulated information of HLC reconstitution. The oldest is further to an OM dated 21-Aug-2001. The 6 OMs (and Schemes referred to in them) are NOT the orders / decisions (likely made on file) sought in part of my request. 15 months aŌer I applied u/s 6(1), HLC information has neither been provided nor refused to me u/s 7(1). ii. HLC related OMs in 'Important Letters' were issued in 3 different files. Request dt. 20.03.23 in F. No. CIC/MHOME/A/2023/627143 is for basic FILE DETAILS. CPIO rejected u/s 8(1)(e). In 1st appeal I said the details sought are File Register entries, not supplied by anyone to in fiduciary relation. FAA rejected by 'template' order dt. 31.05.23 and I filed 2nd Appeal dt. 02.06.23. 3. My initial 2 nd Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2022/622229 against CPIO's 'Reply' dt. 09.03.22 was disposed of by Order dt. 03.01.24. For hearing on 05.12.23, I had submitted the correspondence in F. No. CIC/MHOME/A/2022/646279 (vide Link Paper D. No. 652943) in support of submission about contradicting information. I submit that: (a) The information not provided on my request dt. 21.06.22 is such as is published in statement u/s 4(1)(b)(viii). I should not have had to apply for it at all. Instead, I had to make sequential requests because CPIO gave wrong and varying replies. (b) Information denied on my request dt. 20.03.23 cannot be denied u/s 8(1)(e). (c) I was not informed till 13.03.23 (over 2 years after I asked for URL) that some HLC information is 'available' on the website but information mixed-up in assorted 'Important Letters' is not really 'available' u/s 4(3). (d) DM Division is HLC's Secretariat and, as such, responsible for implementing the mandate u/s 4 of the RTI Act in respect of HLC. Its website has no disclosure about the HLC or the working of HLC Secretariat..." The Respondent reiterated the contents of their reply and stated that the relevant information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Appellant.
Page 3 Decision:
Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that appropriate action as per the provisions of the RTI Act has been taken by the CPIO. The reply furnished by the PIO is legally appropriate as per the provision of RTI Act.
Commission also observes that information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer. As per Section 4 of the RTI Act, the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the Respondent is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information related to their department on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information. Accordingly, the Respondent public authority is advised to publish maximum information related to their department on their official website as per the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 after taking into consideration the exemptions clauses of Section 8(1) and Section 9 of the RTI Act, in the interest of public at large.
In view of foregoing, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. It is recommended to maintain records in digital form for proper management and ease of access in compliance with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)