Central Information Commission
Shri M. Raja Manohar vs Ordnance Factory Board, Ministry Of ... on 1 September, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00683 & 684 both dated 8.5.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri M. Raja Manohar, Andhra Pradesh
Respondent - Ordnance Factory, Ministry of Defence, Kolkata
Facts:
These are two appeals from Shri Raja Manohar of Movva Mandalam, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00683 In a request of 21.2.07 Shri Raja Manohar sought the following information from Shri Deepanjan Mazumdar, Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkatta:
"Subject matter of information: - Tables to be prepared by Shri Aditya Mishra DDG, undertaking with signature in green ink and ink seal regarding the Transfers and of relieve in of Group A&B Officers (2004-2006).
(ii) The following table should be prepared (on legal six paper (S) inclined in landscape style) by Shri Aditya Mishra DDG with a heading and due undertaking at the end of table with signature in green ink, date, with ink seal and it should be counter-signed by APIO/OFB. If this table runs into more than one page, each page should be signed by Shri Aditya Mishra DDG and it should be counter signed by APIO/ OFB and the table should include my name also. Group-A and Group-B Officers tables might be prepared separately. Please issue me the document (s) in original.
Heading: - Names of Group-A & Group-B Transferred Officers of Ordnance Factory Medak to be relieved on the date, i.e., - When I, the undersigned, directed GM/Ordnance Factory Medak (OFMK) to relieve Shri M. Raja Manohar, WM, by a fax and the details of same kind of taxes issued by me on the same day to GM/OFMK to relieve other Group-A & Group-B Officers.
Date on which I sent the Fax to GM/Ordnance Factory Medak directing GM to relieve Shri M. Raja Manohar, WM, immediately to report at RFI: -
11. Name
2. Designation
3. Date of transfer
4. No of years of service at OFMK on date of transfer
5. On this date such kind of fax is issued/ not issued/ not at all issued on any other date.
6. If issued on this date:
a) Furnish the copy prepared at OFB Munitions Unit with fax confirmation report.
b) Call for the copy received at destination & attested Photostat copy of the entry in the fax record.
7. If not issued on this date a. sent date & furnish the copy prepared at OFB Munitions Unit with fax confirmation report.
b. Call for the copy received at destination & attested Photostat copy of the entry in the fax record.
8. Transfer done public interest / private interest.
9. Transfer cancelled in public interest/ private interest
10. Officer is relieved / not yet relieved so far. Please give relieved date, if any."
To this he received a response on 5.3.07 from Shri Amarjit Singh, Dy. Director General and PIO, OF Board, as follows:
"(i) The request for 'information'/ copies &/ or original (s) of 'document(s), by the applicant, is not at all clear.
(ii) Without going into the details of paragraphs (S) No. 4 of the application dated 21st February 2007, and sub-Para (s)k therein, I may point out that the applicant has given exhaustive direction (S) to APIO(FB) to arrange for 2 (two) number of "Tables" to be prepared and signed (Heading and 2 undertaking to be given to be given to each of the Tables (s) has been indicated by the applicant) by Shri Aditya Mishra, DDG and countersigned by APIO (OFB). The applicant has gone at length to point out the structure of the "table":
including the specific official stationery that may be issued, the colour of ink to be used the signing, ink seal etc.
(iii) The application may note that appointment and duty of APIO u/s 5 (2) of the Act, in any public authority is amply clear. To have greater clarity in the matter, the applicant may refer to 'Decision' in Appeal No. 10/1/2005-CIC dated 25th February 2006- Er. Sarbajit Roy vs. Delhi Development Authority.
(iv) The RTI Act, 2005 does not afford an applicant (Citizen) the scope to issue directive (S) to APIO, PIO &/or AA of a public authority; but surely is an appropriate legislation by which 'information', defined in section 2 (f) etc. of the Act, can be very effectively accessed from a public authority.
(v) As for drawing up of "Tables(s)", the applicant may note that 'information' does not exist in the form it has been requested. The applicant may refer to the following 'Decision' of Central Information Commission, New Delhi, in the matter. Many other similar 'Decision(S)' of Central Information Commission, New Delhi have not been quoted to keep the discussion pithy;
a) Decision No. 216/ IC (A)/2006/in F. Nos. CIC/MA/A/2006/ 00606 dated 31st August 2006: Shri Jai Kishan vs. Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Central Office, Mumbai.
b) Decision No. 236/IC(A)/2006 in F. No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00636 dated 11th September 2006: Shri A. Santosh Mathew vs. Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, New Delhi.
(vi) The applicant's attention is drawn to the following 'Decision' of Central Information Commission, New Delhi, which puts the whole perspective in true light;
'Decision' in F. No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00336 dated 25th October 2006:
Shri Ashish Kumar Khare vs. Shri K. Gopalakrishnan, Dy. Director General & CPIO, Fishery Survey of India, Botawala, Chambers, Mumbai- 400 001 etc. 3
04. In view of the above, and as no document(S) is possible to be rendered, the applicant is to find enclosed IPO No. 48F 756881 for Rs. 20/- (Rs. Twenty only)forwarded as "(sic).....
fee for documents cost (Estimate only):. This was never asked to be remitted in the first place by PIO (OFB)."
Aggrieved Shri Raja Manohar moved his first appeal on 19.3.07 in which he has not contested the response of PIO but simply repeated his request. Upon this Shri Aurobindo Nandi Member (Personnel) & F.A.A., OFB decided as follows:
"(i) I am to note that the appellant in his 'appeal (1st) has not referred to any communication (S) received by him from PIO (OFB). Strictly speaking, as per section 19 (1) of the Act, the appellant is required to indicate the ground (s) on which 'appeal (1st) is being preferred with appellate authority of the public authority. In the instant 'appeal (1st) dated 19th March 2007 neither reference to any communication(S) by PIO (OFB) to the appellant etc nor the ground(S) of preferring the 'appeal(1st)' are available.
(ii) Notwithstanding the above, I am taking cognizance of the appellant's 'appeal(1st)' dated 19th March 2007 and admitting the same.
(iii) (a) I am to record that PIO (OFB) has given point wise reply to the appellant's application dated 21st February 2007. I also find that PIO/ OFB has cited some 'Decisions' of Central Information Commission, New Delhi in his reply dated 5th March 2007. I have perused the said ' Decision (s)' and find that the ratio of such 'Decision (s)' have been appropriately made applicable to the appellant's request for 'information' vide his application dated 21st February 2007.
(b) The appellant has once again sought for preparation of 'Tables' in his 'appeal (1st)' dated 19th March 2007. As I find that PIO (OFB) has already cited 'Decision(s)' of CIC, New Delhi on this aspect, there is noting more to add or discuss."
Appellant's prayer before us in this case is as below:
"Prayer or relief sought:- If the information, which I requested but denied by both CPIO and AA can be revealed under RTI 4 Act 2005, the penal provisions as per 0the RTI At 2005 may be applied. Though I mentioned the purpose to Appellate Authority this information is not revealed by both CPIO and AA. Not even single document is furnished to me. I deposited Rs. 20/- by IPO, in advance, to CPIO while applying the application. It had been duly returned in original by both CPIO and AA."
File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00684 By an application of 2.2.07 Shri Raja Manohar has sought information on 12 questions with several sub questions with regard to his transfer from OFMU. To this he received a response on 27.2.07 seeking to answer each of the questions point-wise as below:
"(i) Para-4(i), point(s) (A) to (G): (A) Shri M. Raja Manohar (hereinafter applicant) may like to note that his request has been considered in terms of the following 'Decisions' of Central Information Commission, New Delhi;
(a) Decision in CIC/AT/A/2006/00363 dated 3rd November 2006;
Dr. R. K. Garg vs. Shri A. K. Yadav, Director (Police) & CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi etc.
(b) Decision in F. No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00296 dated 20th November 2006; Shri A. P. Sharma vs. Cdr-At-Arms S. K. Gupta, CPIO (Navy) Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence (N), New Delhi etc. In view of the above decision, rendered by CIC, comment(s) of Senior Deputy Director General/ Corporate Planning (OFB) the then General Manager /Ordnance Factory Project, Medak and Deputy Director General/ G (OFB) have been obtained in terms of Section 11 of the Act. Both the Govt. functionaries have expressed that their comment(S noting in file(S) should neither be rendered nor copy should be made available. Undersigned is also convinced that no larger public activity or interest is served, and therefore, copies of document(S) are not made available in terms of section 8(1) (e) of the Act.
(B) As far as Para/ point 4 (i) (b) is concerned, it is in the nature of direction to PIO, and no comments are made.
(C)(a) The request for 'information' against Para/ point nos. 4 (i) (c) to (G) are omnibus in nature. The applicant may, avail of the opportunity to inspect the relevant documents as available with Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata (public authority).
5Much of the 'information' requested by the applicant are available in separate personal files of Offices etc., and therefore, the applicant can be allowed to inspect only those relevant portion(s) of the personal file that is concerned with his request (that is, section 10 of the Act will be applied). As far as leave availed by Officer(S) is concerned, such 'information' attract section 8 (1) (j) of the Act and thus will not be made available.
(b) It may also be noted by the applicant that the condition(s) or inspection of documents in terms of Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) (Amendment) Rules 2005 will be applicable. And, further that Section 10 of the Act will be invoked on case-to-case basis , pertaining to each point of the applicant's request, and as required.
(c) The applicant may like to inform PIO (OFB) about action to be taken on his part, well in advance, and await confirmation to the effect that necessary arrangement(S) have been put in place. The opportunity for inspection of document(S) by the applicant will be regulated by such arrangement(S) as may have been extended to any other citizen under the Act.
(ii) Para-4(ii) The applicant has indicated the period for which he desires 'information', i.e. from the year 2002 to 2007. No comments are offered.
(iii) Para-4 (iii) (1):This point has been replied in para-04 (i) (a) above.
(iv) Para-4 (iii) (2): This point has been replied in para-04 (i) (a) above.
(v) Para-4 (iii) (3) The applicant has given directive (S) to PIO (OFB) to answer in 'yes' or 'no' and has also asked for 'simple explanations'. The applicant may note that PIO is not required to officer 'explanations' on 'information' requested. This is beyond the scope of PIO as mandated under the Act.
Notwithstanding the above, copy of OFB Fax No. 5257/A/G dated 2nd June 2006 (one page) relevant to his point No. 4 (iii) (3) (ii) has been identified. The rest of the points are queries, which cannot be commented by PIO. CIC, New Delhi's 'Decision' No. CIC/ AT/A/2006/00045 dated 21st April 2006; Dr. D. V. Rao vs. Shri Yashwant Singh, APIO & Deputy Secretary (A), Dep't of Legal Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi etc refers.
6(vi) Para- 4(iii) (4): The applicant has asked for 'information' in 'tabular form' (though the applicant has mentioned about format of 'tables(s)', the same have not been indicated by the applicant). The applicant has again made omnibus request without specifying any particular 'information' sought. The applicant may note, as example, the following 'Decisions' of CIC, New Delhi which succinctly explains the position vis-à-vis his request (other 'Decisions' available are not indicated to keep the discussion short):
Decision No. 216/ IC(A)/2006 in F. No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00608 dated 31st August 2006: Shri Jai Kishan vs. Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai.
(vii) Para-4 (iii) (5) As the applicant has sought voluminous 'information' which is also omnibus in nature, the applicant may like to avail of the opportunity to inspect relevant documents. Conditions indicated in Para 04 (i) (C ) above refers.
(viii) Para-4 (iii) (6): The applicant may, after obtaining, refer to OFB Fax No. 5257/A/G dated 2nd June 2006 regarding his release from OFPM to RFI. Further OFB Fax No. 2258/A/G dated 8th August 2006 (one page) regarding release of Shri Nanda Kumar, Additional General Manager/ OFPM to IOLMK as Principal Director has been identified as relevant.
(ix) Para-4(iii) (7): The applicant is to note that no specific register to record faxes being sent to various Ordnance Factories in the O/o Shri Aditya Mishra, DDG/G is maintained.
(x) Para-4(iii) (8) A page of information regarding CVO /OFB(G) (OFB) for the period from 2002 to January 2007 as available with the public authority has been identified and a copy is forwarded.
(xi) Para-4(iii) -9 A page of 'Information' as available with the public authority regarding Officers (transfer cases) against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and a copy is forwarded.
(xii) Para-4 (iii) (10) A page of MoU ID No. 4(4)2005/D(FY.I) dated 31st Oct., 2005 (one page) has been identified as available with the public authority and a copy is forwarded.7
(xiii)P-4(iii)(11) The applicant is to note that 'information' is not available in the form (that is a list etc. w.e.f. 200 to 2007) in which it has been requested.
(xiv) P-4(iii)(12) The applicant may note that leave availed by Shri H. L. Kapur the then General Manager OFP, Medak is personal to the said officer. Therefore, in application of Sec.
8(1)(j) of the Act - as neither overriding public activity nor public interest is discernible - the same is denied.
05. Vide reference (iii) above, the applicant had forwarded the following IPS. Receipt was acknowledged vide reference (iv) above.
S.No. IPO No. Amount Remarks.
1. 56E 320487 Rs. 10/- Remitted as fee
2. 17G610238 Rs. 50/- Remitted as additional fee
3. 17G610240 Rs. 50/- Remitted as additional fee
The applicant has earlier remitted ( in anticipation) but never asked by PIO (OFB), 2 (two Nos) IPS of Rs. 50/- each towards additional fee. Now IPO No. 17G610238 for Rs. 50/- (Rs. Fifty only) is retained towards additional fee and the other IPO that is No. 17G610240 is returned (in original) for necessary action by the applicant."
In this case also in his first appeal appellant Shri Raja Manohar has repeated the questions that he had moved with PIO. The decision of Shri Aurobindo Nandi in this case is as below:
i) I am to note that PIO(OFB) in his reply dated 27.2.07 (letter No. 135PIO/A/RTI) has addressed all points of the appellant's applicant dated 2.2.07.
ii) So said, I find that the appellant has asked the appellate authority not to consider entries in Para 4(i) of his appeal (1st) dated 10.3.07 as part of information, but has requested for information against Para 4(iii) of his instant appeal (1st). I am to further note that the appellant has numbered point(s) as 1 to 12 - there is no point numbered as 11, point No. 12 follows point No. 10 - in Para 4(iii) of his appeal(1st).
iii) A) I have already recorded that PIO(OFB) has given point wise reply to the appellant's application dated 2.2.07. I am to agree with PIO(OFB) on the point wise reply given to the appellant. I also find no ground(s) to interfere with the 8 application of various sub clauses of sec. 8 of the Act invoked by PIO (OFB) (B) I have perused the various Decisions of CIC New Delhi cited by PIO(OFB) and am to conclude that the ratio of those Decisions have been correctly applied by PIO(OFB) including CIC, New Delhi's Decision No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 dated 21.4.2006. Dr. D.V.Raoi vs. Shri Yashwant Singh, APIO & Deputy Secretary (A) Dep't.
Of Legal Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi etc. against Para 4(iii)(3). The guideline given by CIC New Delhi in the said Decision has to be seen holistically and I do not find any infirmity by PIO (OFB) in applying the ratio of the said Decision. The appellant has not drawn my attention to any other Decision by CIC New Delhi to counter the stand taken by PIO (OFB).
iv) Further, as per Sec. 19 of the Act, Appellate Authority is not to be drawn into the exercise of rendering information de novo especially when PIO has addressed all point(s) / ground(s) of the request for information by the applicant ( appellant ) and also as AA/OFB Kolkatta.
v) (a) I find that PIO has forwarded a copy of the following document(s) to the appellant vide his letter No. 135/PIO/A/RTI dated 27.2.07:
a) copy of OFB FAX No. 5257/A/G dated 2.6.06 (one page)
b) Copy of OFB FAX No. 2258/A/G dated 8.8.06 (one page)
c) Information regarding CVO / OFB and DDG (OFB) for the period from 2002 to Jan., 2007 (one page)
d) Information as available with the public authority regarding Officers (transfer cases) against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and a copy is forwarded. ( one page)
e) Copy of MoD I.D. No. 4(4)/2005/D(FY.I) dated 31.1005 (one page) The documents at (c ) & (d) above are duly authenticated by Dy.
Director / OFB, while photocopies of documents at (a) (b) & (e) have been rendered.
b) Since the appellant had asked for certified copies of documents vide his application dated 2.2.07, PIO (OFB) may arrange to have the documents at (a), (b) & (e) above duly countersigned by the Officer(s) holding the document(s) and forward the same free of cost to the appellant. .
9vi) The appellant has expressed his inability to travel to Kolkatta regarding the opportunity for inspection of document(s) - this has been offered by PIO (OFB) in Para 04 © sub Para (s) (a) to (c) in his letter No. 135/PIO/A/RTI dated 27th February 2007. I find that there is no denial of 'information' by PIO (OFB) I am given to understand that the information sought by the applicant is spread over different administrative authorities in OFB, Kolkatta (public authority) and in various files whose continuous availability with such authorities is required for administrative purpose(s). Thus the appellant may like to, if not possible for him to undertake a journey to Kolkatta in the present, inform PIO (OFB) any visit that he contemplates to the city in the future for carrying out inspection of records. "
The appeal was heard by videoconference on 1.9.08. The following are present:
Respondents at NIC Studio Kolkatta Shri Sushant Shekhar, PIO Shri D. M. Rao, Director Although informed of the hearing by Notice dated 23.8.08 and arrangements having been made of hearing him through the Video Conferencing in Hyderabad Shri Raja Manohar has opted not to be present.
File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00683 In this case three decisions of this Commission cited by respondents in refusing information were examined. In the case of Shri Santosh Mathew vs. DOPT this Commission had in its decision of 11.9.06 held that "The main issue raised by the appellant is whether the CPIO should collect the information, which is not available in his office, from other public bodies.". Therefore, this Commission has decided that "A CPIO is expected to provide the information available with him." Similarly, in Shri Jai Kishan vs. Reserve Bank of India this Commission has held that a CPIO should be responsible "To furnish information that are available in his office. For the information which his not available in his office, the application should be transferred u/s 6 (3) (1) to the CPIO who has them." In the case of Shri Khare, this Commission has held that "Any more 10 information to the appellant as the rules, notifications, circulars, etc. are already in the public domain and hence accessible to the appellant."
It will be seen that in none of these cases has the Commission held that information be provided only in the form in which it is maintained by the public authority. Sec. 7(9) of the RTI Act on the other hand quite clearly mandates that "An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question." Thus it would be seen that refusal of information I the form asked is, under this clause, only when the information sought becomes too cumbersome, otherwise it must be provided in the form in which it is sought.
File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00684 In this case the issues arises as to the disclosure of file notings. In the cases of CIC quoted from, we have held as follows:
Case of Shri A.P.Sharma "file notings in the case of files classified as confidential attract the exemption of Section 8(1)(j); and if in a given case it is decided to disclose notings of a confidential file, it has to be done only in terms of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act."
Case of Dr. R.K.Garg "When read together, Section 11(1) and Section 8(1)(e) unerringly point to a conclusion that notings of a "confidential' file should be disclosed only after giving opportunity to the third party, viz the officer / officers writing those notes, to be heard."
It will, therefore, be clear that in this case such information can only be refused if the nature of the information sought is classified as "confidential". Even in that case, however, it can still be disclosed if the third party gives its consent u/s 11(1).11
DECISION NOTICE In case of F. No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00683 the CPIO will now compile the information which he states is available in 9 different files and provide the same to appellant Shri Raja Manohar within thirty working days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice With regard to File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00684, the consent of third parties will be taken where required within 5 days from the date of issue of this Decision Notice. They will be allowed ten days for a response, and if received or not received, within that time frame, a final decision of providing information or refusing the same with reasons for such a conclusion will be made within 15 working days from that date;. in other words, within 30 working days from the date of issue of this Decision Notice.
In both cases compliance will be reported to us through Shri Pankaj K.P.Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar of this Commission.
Both appeals are allowed in part. Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 1.9.2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 1.9.2008 12