Central Information Commission
Mr. Girish Mittal vs Central Information Commission on 11 August, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000552 dated 5-5-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Girish Mittal,
Respondent: Central Information Commission
Decision announced in hearing 11.08.2010
FACTS
By an application of 14-11-08 Shri Girish Mittal of Borivali East, Mumbai applied to the CPIO, CIC seeking the following information:
(a) Kindly provide yearly commissioner wise detail of disposal of final appeals/complaints since inception of the Commission till 31st October in the following format:
Name of the Commissioner: Date of assuming charge: Number of cases disposed in 2005-06 Number of cases disposed in 2006-07 Number of cases disposed in 20076-08 Number of cases disposed in 2008-09 (till 31th October)
(b) Does the commission have the practice to acknowledge each complaint/appeal received? Kindly provide copies of acknowledgment sent for the following appeal # s CIC/OK/C/2006/00146,CIC/OK/C/2007/00240,CIC/PB/C/ 2007/00058,CIC/OK/.C/2008/00809,CIC/WB/A/2006/008 66,CIC/WB/A/2008/01550, CIC/WB/C/2008/00837, CIC/PB/A/2006/00457. Kindly provide photocopies of the outward/dispatch register giving the dates of dispatch of each of these.
(c) When did the appeal hearing take place for the case # CIC/AT/A/2008/00248. As per the RTI Act, did the commissioner pronounce an order during the hearing and subsequently was a written order issued? What is the time frame for issuing the order as enshrined in the Act.
Has appellant been provided the copy of the said order? Kindly provide relevant extract from the dispatch register giving details of the dispatch. Has the said Commissioner received any complaint/correspondence after the hearing from the appellant/respondent?
(d) What is the case/appeal# of the appeal of Lalita Mittal vs. RBI, which was received by the commission on 22nd August, 2008 (ref. Commissioner's Diary # 10146).
To this he received a point wise response from CPIO, Shri Tarun Kumar, Jt. Secretary, CIC dated 12-12-08, informing him as follows:
1(a) The reply of the Designated Officer obtained under section 5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005, is as under: -
Due to change in the software the figures are not available Commissioner wise. However, the month wise disposal of the cases for the Commission is enclosed.
(b). The reply of the Designated Officer obtained under section 5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 is as under:-
In the year, 2006, appeals/complaints were not acknowledged. However, in the year 2007 acknowledgements were issued. But that too was done away with due to paucity of staff. As far as the Registry of IC(K), now letter is sent to individual that his case has been registered as case no. so and so. In your case this communication in case no. CIC/OK/C/2008/00809 could not be sent as this file was under submission to CPIO for replying to an RTI application from the application from the applicant.
For the file No.CIC/WB/A/2006/00866, CIC/WB/C2008/00837 and CIC/WB/A/2006/01550, no acknowledgment was sent as per the available records in the Registry of Chief Information Commissioner.
Copies of acknowledgment in file (CIC/PB/C/2007/00058 & CIC/PB/A/2006/00457) are not available on record.
(c) The reply of the Designated officer obtained under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 is as under:-
• Hearing in appeal case no. CIC/AT/A/2008/00248 was held on 13.10.2008.
• Since you were present during the hearing, you may be aware as to whether decision was pronounced during the hearing or not. No such record is available to this effect in the file. A written order dated 15.11.2008 was issued and a copy of the order was also furnished to you also. • You may peruse the Right to information Act, 2005 which is a public document. Nevertheless, it is ot inform that no such time frame is stipulated in the Right to Information Act, 2005 for the Commission to pass an order.
• Yes. A copy of the order dated 15.11.2008 was furnished to you.
• Copies of the relevant portion under Sl. No. 40391, 40393 and 40394 of dispatch register are enclosed herewith for your perusal.
• The Commission has received a letter from the respondents after the hearing.2
(d) A copy of the Communication regarding case of Ms. Lalita Mittal vs. RBI diarized in the Commission against Diary No. 10146 dt. 28.02.2008 is enclosed."
Aggrieved with this response Shri Girish Mittal moved an appeal on 20- 12-08 before Shri Mohd. Haleem Khan, Secretary, CIC objecting to the response given to questions (a) and (b) as follows:
a) "I don't think this alibi is sustainable in letter and spirit of RTI, Act. Moreover, this is critical piece of information which should be readily available with the CIC. You are requested to direct the CPIO to provide this information.
b) The CPIO has replied that the in the year 2006 the appeals /complaints were not acknowledged. In the year 2007 this practice was started, but disbanded. The CPIO has not given information about the practice followed in the year 2008. Also there is no mention of the procedure which will be followed in the year 2009, which is due to start soon."
Upon this Shri Mohammed Haleem Khan in his order of 19-1-09 has allowed the appeal as follows:
"After discussion with CPIO it was found that better answers could have been provided in the light of the information available in the Commission to meet the end of RTI application. Accordingly CPIO is directed to prepare replies afresh and email to the appellant within 15 days. The email address is now on record."
Complying with this decision, in his e-mail of 14-9-09 Shri Tarun Kumar has provided a list of Information Commissioners with their dates of assuming charge as follows:
Name of Commissioner Date of assuming charge WB-Mr. Wajahat Habibullah 26.10.2005 AT- Mr. A.N. Tiwari 26.12.2005 MA-Prof. M.M. Ansari 31.10.2005 PB- Ms. Padma Balasubramanian 26.10.2005 OK-Dr. O.P. Kejariwal 27.10.2005 MLS-Mr. M.L. Sharma 08.09.2008 SM- Mr. Satyananda Mishra 05.09.2008 AD- Ms. Annapurna Dixit 08.09.2008 SG-Mr. Shailesh Gandhi 18.09.2008 CPIO has also provided a yearly list of Information Commissioners' disposal of appeals and complaints separately up to 31-10-2008. However, in 3 his second appeal before us Shri Girish Mittal has raised the following two issues:
(a). Subsequent to the orders of AA, CIC, the CPIO did provide the figures, however, the said figures did not tally with the figures provided on the CIC website.
(b). These are two contradictory statements by two CPIOs of the Commission1. Obviously both of them cannot be correct, which means one of the two CPIO has deliberately provided incorrect information.
(a) The commission is prayed to direct the CPIO to provide true and authentic information.
(b) The Commission is prayed to initiate action u/s 20(2) against one of the two CPIOs for deliberately providing incorrect information.
The appeal was heard through video-conferencing on 11-8-2010. The following are present.
Appellant at NIC Studio, Mumbai Shri Girish Mittal Respondents at CIC Chamber New Delhi Ms. Anita Gupta Shri Tarun Kumar CPIO Shri Tarun Kumar submitted that in fact, the website of the Commission in terms of listing appeals and complaints decided upon had been found inadequate and there were indeed contradictions between the information uploaded on the website and the actual figures resulting from failure to upload on time. This system has been now totally revised, tested and brought on line. The figures provided by CPIO to appellant Shri Girish Mittal in his e-mail of 14-2-2009 are the actual figures, as sought.
On the question of alleged contradiction in the information supplied by by then CPIO Shri Mohammed Haleem Khan and Shri Tarun Kumar, Shri Tarun Kumar submitted that the response of Shri Mohammed Haleem Khan was only with regard to such applications which were received by hand or by registered post whereas his own response was in general terms on UPC generated acknowledgement which had been introduced for a while and then 1 Reference is to two responses received from CPIO Shri MH Khan, Secretary and CPIO Sh Tarun Kumar JS in two separate cases 4 discontinued. While appellant Shri Girish Mittal did not further argue the point of figures supplied to him on disposal of appeals/complaints by the Information Commissioners he submitted that there were still defects in the upgraded website. For example, the present hearing has not been listed in the cause list. However, he persisted in his allegation of contradictory statement by two CPIOs because he submitted that the questions asked in both cases were identical and each has received two different answers.
DECISION NOTICE Having heard the arguments and examined the records we find that in fact the information sought by appellant Shri Girish Mittal and held by the Commission has, indeed been provided to him. The difference in the responses received from Shri Mohammed Haleem Khan and Shri Tarun Kumar by Shri Girish Mittal to an identical question is not a contradiction since neither answer had actually dealt with the identical type of acknowledgement that the other deals with. It cannot, therefore, be concluded that either CPIO has "knowingly" provided misleading or incorrect information. On the other hand greater clarity in response would have been salutary. This has led two doubts in the mind of appellant which he expressed in the hearing, that different petitions are addressed differently. Therefore, while we find no merit in the appeal we have taken note of the suggestions of appellant Shri Girish Mittal. Additional Secretary & Appellate Authority Ms. Anita Gupta will now proceed as follows:
i) Take measures to ensure that the cause list of the Commission's website is updated daily and kept upto the hour;
ii) Examine the system of receipts and acknowledgements, if any, to ensure complete uniformity in the case of applications/petitions received in this Commission.
With the above administrative directions, this appeal is dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
5(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 11-8-2010 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 K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 11-8-2010 6