Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Naresh Sharma vs Tata Memorial Centre on 29 August, 2022

                                 के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली,
                               ली New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/TMCTR/A/2021/642630

Shri Naresh Sharma                                            ...   अपीलकता /Appellant
                                 VERSUS/बनाम

PIO                                                     ...   ितवादीगण /Respondent
Sr. Admn Officer,
Tata Memorial Hospial
Mumbai

Date of Hearing                       :    26.08.2022
Date of Decision                      :    29.08.2022
Chief Information Commissioner        :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on               :   22.06.2021
PIO replied on                         :   15.07.2021
First Appeal filed on                  :   15.07.2021
First Appellate Order on               :   23.07.2021
2ndAppeal/complaintdated               :   14.09.2021

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.06.2021 seeking information on following points:-

I had filed a RTI application TMCTR/R/E/21/00047 in which I had asked if the Trustees of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust had nominated some patients for free treatment under the latter Clause 10 of the agreement between the Government of India and the Trustees of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust dated 6.1.1966. The relevant pages of this agreement are attached for completeness although it is the same as the aforesaid RTI application. I had further added that this information would amount to my filing a Police Complaint against the said Trustees under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing theft, and I meant the theft of greater than zero rupees.

The response said that the information is not available in the form as sought by you.

This response could be understood to have varied interpretations, which without any claims of being exhaustive, are as follows:

- This response does not betray any information on the existence of the patients who received free treatment by the said Trustees.

- The response implies that there were such patients.

In the case of the second interpretation, if I were to file a second appeal, it might raise a question that even though a clear indication was given to me, I did not want to pursue his stated goal of filing a Police Complaint against the said Trustees as mentioned in TMCTR/R/E/21/00047.

The appeal TMCTR/A/E/21/00024 was met with a vague response where it upheld the response to the application.

So, after being encumbered with these interpretations and worried no less that my proposed legal nailing of the RTI respondents of the Tata Memorial Centre, such as under IPC 202, as mentioned in TMCTR/A/E/21/00024, may flounder if the Trustees have committed theft, I have decided to file this application whose response may not lead to varied interpretations.

Info needed:

Confirm or deny if the Trustees of the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust have nominated any patient for free treatment under the aforesaid Clause in the last twenty years.

The PIO /Sr. Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Centre vide letter dated 15.07.2021 replied as under:-

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.07.2021. The FAA/Director, Tata Memorial Hospital vide order dated 23.07.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the Respondent dated 18.08.2022. However, the name of the officer signing the submission is not mentioned.

The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He alleged that the trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust were "thieves" as per Section 378 of the IPC and in order to take the next step of prosecution of the offenders u/s 379, he required necessary evidence which he was seeking vide the instant RTI application.

The Respondent represented by Shri Umesh Kumar V Mote, PIO; Dr Vineet Sawant, Assistant Medical Superintendent and Shri Vinayak, Jr Administrative Officer, Tata Memorial Hospital participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Mote stated that information sought by the Appellant was not available with them.

Decision:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent as only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.

With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई.

वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3