Central Information Commission
Venkat Raghavan Ganesh Sekar vs Unique Identification Authority Of ... on 11 October, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2023/654106
Shri Venkat Raghavan Ganesh Sekar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Unique Identification Authority of India ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
(UIDAI)
Date of Hearing : 09.10.2024
Date of Decision : 09.10.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.10.2023
PIO replied on : 07.11.2023
First Appeal filed on : 07.11.2023
First Appellate Order on : 15.11.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 07.12.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.10.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Section A: UIDAI website has misleading information about above 18 enrollment.
1. Please explain or provide details about the action the team has taken on the feedback/complaint filed about this in SRN-S2062374989000. Ref Evidence I in the pdf 2: Do you have records of how many people were misled due to the wrong information in (1) provided on a government website? Section B: ASK Bangalore Majestic One rejected Life Insurance policy, Passbook etc (valid does as per UIDAI) and used only Passport (which was having my old address) saying Change address online later. One hand. ASK can verify quick because of just one document (Passport) for both POI and POA. On the other hand, they pass the burden to the public to update real address later.
1. What kind of training do you offer to these staffs to make sure they follow rules laid out by UIDAI?
2. Will they be fixed?
Section C: A valid rental agreement (Ref Evidence II in pdf) on a SHCILE e-stamp has been rejected for address update (Ref: SRN-S2036887500000).Page 1 of 4
While CPGRAMS grievance filed at (Ref CPGRAMS MINIT/E/2023/0003692) did not help, an appeal officer acknowledged there was a: Technical issue (Ref CPGRAMS appeal UIDAI/E/A/23/0001432) without providing a refund process.
1. Refund policy for a technical issue on the UIDAI has not been clearly stated anywhere. Can you explain why UIDAI/Government tries to retain public money for a technical issue on your end?
2. Can you provide the total number of technical issues that happened on a paid online document submission for 2023 and 2022?
3. If, there is a refund process, can you explain the whole process or refer to a government website link explaining the same?
4. If you now change the approved document list, please provide a valid argument/answer to all those who paid Rs. 50/- (Ref Evidence IV of the pdf) based on your prev policy (Before Oct 2023) Section D: In Evidence II of the pdf, Non registered Rent/Lease Agreement is an ACCEPTABLE address proof for Aadhaar. However, in Evidence III of the pdf, you can see @ Aadhaar_Care twitter account claiming they are unacceptable.
1. Why did Aadhaar support team said: Given EID or URN got rejected due to Quality check for various reasons like poor photograph, demographic errors, invalid document. Hence it is requested to go for Re-enroll in SRN- S2036887500000 even though the rental agreement was crystal clear (Ref CPGRAMS MINIT/E/2023/0003692 attachments).
2. On Aug 29th 7:10am, why did the support person Supriya Pai from 1947 call center said: Photo not clear. You need to pay again 50 rupees, when the document submitted was a rental agreement for an address update.
3. If you agree 1 & 2 are due to unskilled labor, what kind of training have been given to ASK and Aadhaar customer support centers to make them aware of latest UIDAI policy on acceptable documents?"
The CPIO, Unique Identification Authority of India(UIDAI), Bengaluru vide letter dated 07.11.2023 replied as under:-
Section A:-
Reply for point (i) - The concerned Team is yet to receive necessary information from the applicant w.r.t SRN-S2062374989000, for this office to take necessary action.
Reply for point (ii) No other complaints received in this office.
Section B:-
Reply for point (i) As per Aadhaar Act and Regulations, training programs are conducted for operators.
Reply for point (ii) Information sought by the applicant is not as per Section 2(f), Section 2(i) and Section 2 (j) of RTI Act 2005.
Section C:-
Reply for point (i) and (iii) There is no refund policy for enrolment or updation. Reply for point (ii) The information is not available in this office. Reply for point (iv) Information sought by the applicant is not as per Section 2(f). Section 2(1) and Section 2 (j) of RTI Act 2005."
Section D:-
Reply for point (i) and (ii) - It is to be noted that the Information sought by the applicant is not as per Section 2(f), of RTI Act 2005. (As per the RTI Act it is not expected to provide intangible such as interpretations, opinions, advices, Page 2 of 4 explanations, reasons as they cannot be said to be included in the definition of information in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act).
Reply for point (iii) As per Aadhaar Act and Regulations, training programs are conducted for operators."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.11.2023. The FAA vide order dated 15.11.2023 stated as under:-
"The case is reverted back to CPIO for providing appropriate reply with respect to Section C (i) and (iii) of Online RTI application No. UIDAI/R/E/23/01312, dated 09.10.2023 (received in this office on 09.10.2023), in consultation with the concerned division of UIDAI, Head Quarters.
Hence, the Appeal is disposed off accordingly." In compliance with the FAA's order, the PIO sent a reply dated 06.12.2023 with respect to queries C (i) and (iii) of RTI application. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar Pahwa - Director/CPIO was present through video conference during the hearing.
Respondent present for hearing contended that complete information available on record with respect to the Appellant's queries, had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case and averments of the Respondent present for hearing, indicate that information available on record with the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant has chosen not to buttress the case. In the given circumstances, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Page 3 of 4 Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)