Central Information Commission
Singh Sanjay Adyaprasad vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ... on 27 September, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/MTNLT/A/2021/626655
In the matter of
Sanjay Singh
... Appellant
VS
CPIO
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited,
Corporate Office, O/o DGM(RTI),
Mahanagar Door Sanchar Sadan
9-CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 18/01/2021 CPIO replied on : 06/02/2021 First appeal filed on : 07/03/2021 First Appellate Authority order : 06/05/2021 Second Appeal filed on : 27/06/2021 Date of Hearing : 27/09/2022 Date of Decision : 27/09/2022 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Sandeep Kumar, DGM RTI and CPIO, present over VC at CIC Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information with reference to his grievances regarding withholding of his promotion since 30/06/2016 in Sr. Mgr. (T) regular cadre:
1. Details of the case pending in the Court of Law, on the subject matter along with the case number, name of parties, name of the judicial forum where the case is pending and present status of the case.1
2. Provide a list containing names of all officers whose promotion has been withheld.
3. Whether permission from the related judicial forum has been obtained while withholding the promotions?
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his written submissions dated 23.09.2022 has stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO on points no. 1, 3 & 4 as it was simply stated that the information is not available with them. The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 06.02.2021. He also reiterated the written submissions dated 26.09.2022 which elaborated the reply on points no. 1,3 and 4.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that on points no. 1, 3 & 4, an incomplete reply was given by the CPIO as he had simply stated that the information is not available in his Section. Rather than giving such an incomplete reply, the CPIO was bound to take assistance from all the Sections of his office to find out whether the information is available with them or not and in case the information was available with some other public authority, he was supposed to transfer the RTI application to them u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act.
During the hearing, the CPIO was asked to explain as to why such an incomplete and improper reply was given to the appellant, and whether he is aware as to who holds the information, to which he submitted that on 26.09.2022 a further clarification was given for the above points. He further clarified that the same inputs were received from the custodian i.e HR Section.
The reply dated 26.09.2022 was perused and it was noted that for point no. 1 the reply was given stating that no such information is available in this Section. He also replied that only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of 2 the record. In respect of point no. 3 the CPIO replied that no such information is available in the Section and also it is an interrogative question, it was further stated that as per the provisions of the RTI Act, information need not be created to reply to interrogative questions. In respect of point no. 4 it was replied that no such information is available in the Section. Further, the copies of the order of judicial forum are to be provided by the respective judicial forum/Section. He further stated that the Section vide reply dated 15.04.2021 to the appeal of the applicant had stated that "the available documented information has already been provided to the applicant, though, the applicant is not satisfied, the related files may be seen after following the due process as per the provisions of the RTI Act amended from time to time." But the RTI applicant did not turn up to see the related files in the Section. The Commission observed that in point no. 1 the appellant had asked for the details of the case pending in relation to the referred subject matter alongwith the case number, name of parties, name of the judicial forum where the case is pending and the present status of the case. The information sought is eminently disclosable as to the case in respect of which the appellant's promotion matter is pending. In respect of point no. 3 the appellant had asked whether permission from the related judicial forum has been obtained while withholding promotions to which the CPIO's reply is correct that the same is interrogatory in nature. However, he failed to mention that the same is not covered within the ambit of Sec 2(f) of the RTI Act. In respect of point no. 4 the appellant had asked for the copy of order of judicial forum which had permitted to hold promotions in its order. The CPIO can categorically reply whether any such order is available in respect of the appellant. Decision:
The CPIO is therefore asked to resend the copy of the written submissions dated 26.09.2022 and a revised reply on points no. 1 and 4 of the RTI application to the appellant as discussed above within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
3
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
4