Central Information Commission
Rangilu Ram Patyal vs National Productivity Council on 22 April, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DOIPP/A/2021/613021 +
CIC/NPRCL/A/2021/616525
Rangilu Ram Patyal ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
Department of Promotion of
Industry & Internal Trade, Industrial
Safety Wing, Boiler Division, Udyog
Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.
2. CPIO
National Productivity Council,
RTI Cell, Dr. Ambedkar Institute of
Productivity, No. 6, Aavin Dairy Road,
Industrial Estate (North), Ambattur,
Chennai - 600050, Tamil Nadu. .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 19/04/2022
Date of Decision : 19/04/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note- The above mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for the decision
as these are based on same RTI Application.
1
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02/02/2021 & 02/02/2021
CPIO replied on : 25/02/2021 & 03/03/2021
First appeal filed on : 01/03/2021 & 04/03/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 05/04/2021 & 28/04/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08/04/2021 & 26/04/2021
CIC/DOIPP/A/2021/613021
CIC/NPRCL/A/2021/616525
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 02.02.2021 seeking the following information:
1. "copy of Noting sheet of the file in which my representations to Honble CIM were processed sent on 24.10.20 (Acknowledged on 26.10.20 and representation dated 9.11.20 and both sent to Secy DIPP.
2. Copy of the noting sheet of the file on which my representations dated 30.9.20 5.10.20 and 16.11.2020 were sent to Addl. Secy DPIIT were processed
3. Photocopies of the first page of my answer sheets in respect of 6th Competent Person Examination held in Feb2020 Roll No 6122."
In case no. CIC/DOIPP/A/2021/613021- The CPIO/Respondent no.1 furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 25.02.2021 stating as follows:-
"......copy of noting sheet sought at SI No. i) and ii) above (6- pages) is annexed. It is further informed that the information sought at SI. No. iii) is not available in this office as the 6th Competent Person Examination was conducted by National Productivity Council (NPC), Chennai on behalf of the Central Boilers Board. Your application is accordingly being transferred to the Director, NPC, Chennai, as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, for providing the information in respect of SI. No. iii to you directly and you may approach them in future."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.03.2021. FAA's order dated 05.04.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
2In case no. CIC/NPRCL/A/2021/616525 -
The CPIO/Respondent no. 2 furnished a reply to the appellant on 03.03.2021 stating as follows:-
"................SI. No (iii). Photocopies of the first page of my answer sheets in respect of 6th competent person examination held in Feb-2020, Roll No.6122. In this regard, as already intimated to you by public information officer on 25th June, 2020 & by appellate authority on 09th July, 2020, please refer to the clause 11, Sub-clause 15(b) of Examination prospectus (website Link: http://aiarwc.in/CBB 2020 Prospectus.pdf), which clearly states that "photocopies of evaluated answer books will not be made available to candidates"."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.03.2021. FAA's order dated 28.04.2021 held as under:-
" May I inform you that as per the Prospectus clause 11 and sub clause 15(b), photocopies of evaluated answer books shall not be made available to the candidates.
It may also be noted that NPC/AIP is only an agency which is conducting the exam and also maintaining records as per the contractual obligations.
Unless the condition in prospectus is waived explicitly in writing by Central Boiler Board, DPIIT, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, NPC/AIP will not be in a position to provide the sought information."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of information at point no. 3 of RTI Application.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.3
Respondent no. 1: Mohd. Zakaria Khan Yusufzai, SDO & CPIO present through audio-conference.
Respondent no. 2: D. Sreenivasulu, Head & PIO present through audio-conference.
The Commission at the outset apprised the Respondents regarding the prayer of the Appellant seeking exemption from participating in the hearing proceedings and the contentions raised by him through a written submission dated Nil, relevant portion of which case wise is as under -
In case no. CIC/DOIPP/A/2021/613021
1. The facts of the case are that Department for Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade (DPIIT) organizes Competent Person Examination which is conducted through National Productivity Council(NPC). I appeared in the said 6th Competent Person examination under Roll No. 6122. Thereafter, I applied following information regarding my examination:-
"Photo copies .of the covering page indicating marks obtained in Paper-1 & Paper- 2 of 6th Competent Person Examination in respect of me under Roll No. 6122 and Marks obtained in the Interview."
2. The CPIO Boiler division had two options:-
i) Either to forward my application to CPIO NPC, Chennai within 5 days of receipt of application.
ii) Or to collect the information from CPIO NPC and supply the same to me.
However, he chose to ask me to apply to Director, NPC Chennai which is against the Provisions of RTI Act. The reply given was as under:-
"iii. Information under sl. No. 3 is not available in this Office as the 6th Competent Person Examination was conducted by the National Productivity Council (NPC) Chennai on behalf of the Central Boiler Board and the information sought by you is not available in this Office and you may approach Director, NPC Chennai for this information."
3. The provision of RTI Act in this case is as under:-
(3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,--
(i) which is held by another public authority; or
(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:4
Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.
In case no. CIC/NPRCL/A/2021/616525 " ...The 2nd appeal against the CPIO , National Productivity Council (NPC) RTI Cell is linked with the RTI Appeal against the CPIO, Boiler Division, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade.(DPIIT) which was heard and decided on 18.01.2022. As per orders passed in that appeal, the information has been supplied to me. However, the fact remains that the CPIO denied me the information against the provisions of RTI Act. Hence it is prayed that:-
1. Since the CPIO, without any reasonable cause, has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 and has malafidely denied the request for information which was the subject of the request it is requested to impose a penalty @ 250/day as per the provision under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
2. The CPIO has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to furnish information within the time specified under subsection (1) of section 7 and has malafidely denied the request for information it is requested to recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer under the service rules applicable to him under Section 20(2) of the Act."
The Respondent no. 1 relied on his written submission dated 12.04.2022 wherein it was mentioned as under -
" ...The Appellant has sought the same information as referred above at Sr. No. iii, by filing multiple applications under the RTI Act. He had sought the same information in another RTI application for which second appeal was heard by the Central Information Commission (File No. CIC/DOIPP/A/2020/690044) and as directed by Hon'ble Information Commissioner, Ms. Saroj Punhani vide Order dated 18.1.2022, the said information was obtained by CPIO from NPC, Chennai and was provided to the appellant vide CPIO's letter No. P-30022/9/2020-Boiler dated 31.1.2022.
There was no intention by CPIO to deny any available information. CPIO had given all the information available with him to the Appellant/Complainant within time and as the information sought at Sr. No. iii of the RTI application was not available with CPIO, the application was transferred to NPC Chennai and he has already received this information from CPIO as well as NPC Chennai.."5
The Respondent no. 2 submitted that relevant extract of information in response to point no. 3 has already been furnished to the Appellant on 25.01.2022.
Lastly, the Respondents added that the Appellant is a habitual RTI Applicant who has filed multiple RTI Applications seeking the same kind of information just to harass the Respondent public authority, however all his RTI Applications have been duly replied to on each occasion.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the initial denial of information by the Respondent no. 2 in response to point no. 3 without substantiating the same under relevant exemption clause of Section 8/9 of RTI Act was inappropriate.
However, considering the submissions of all the parties that the Respondent no. 2 in compliance with the order of the bench in another Second Appeal of the Appellant in case no. CIC/DOIPP/A/2020/690044 decided on 18.01.2022 has already provided relevant information to the Appellant at point no. 3 of RTI Act, no scope of further relief is pertinent in the matter.
Further, the Commission is not convinced with the contention of the Appellant for initiating penal action against the CPIOs' in the absence of malafide ascribed on the part of the Respondent no. 2 in the initial denial of information at point no. 3. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."6
In view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The appeal (s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7