Central Information Commission
S V Amale vs Ministry Of Defence on 16 August, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2023/123805
S V Amale .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
The Commandant, National
Defence Academy, Khadakwasla,
Pune- 411023. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.08.2024
Date of Decision : 14.08.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.03.2023
CPIO replied on : 10.04.2023
First appeal filed on : 11.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 18.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29.05.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.03.2023 seeking the following information:
i. Non-Payments of My leave encashment & Last Two months' Salary (i.e., May -2002, Jun-2002) dtd. 30/1/2023-(Copy attached). ii. Period: May 2002 to till to date.Page 1 of 6
The CPIO vide its letter dated 10.04.2023 had given reply to the Appellant which states as under:
"The requisite information as sought and reply thereon is as under-
Sr no. Queries Reply
(a) Provide the updated information In this connection following
of Non-payment of leave letters are forwarded
encashment and last 2 months herewith:
salary (e. May 2002 & Jun 2002). (a) Letter No 1200/Gen/Edn
Application dt 30 Jan 2023 is dt 02 Jul 2021.
attached. (b) Letter No
202902/CMPL/Adm dt 15 Jan
2021.
(c) Letter No
UA/NDA/4851/AC dt 08 Mar
2021
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 18.05.2023, held as under.
Observation
4. Perusal of the first appeal and RTI application reveals that the CPIO has judiciously exercised his duties as per the provisions of the RTI Act. There is NO violation of any provisions of RTI Act on part of CPIO. It is observed that the appellant while filing RTI application has declared his address with PIN Code 411038 However the appellant while filing this appeal has declared his address with PIN Code 411020 Thus, it can construed that the appellant has inadvertently declared his wrong address which has resulted in non-delivering of reply to the appellant. Decision
5. Be that as it may, the CPIO is directed to, forward the reply to the appellant on the address given by the appellant in the present appeal within five working days. The appellant is also advised to refrain from declaring incomplete address in the RTI application advertently or inadvertently so that there is no loss of man hours and diversion of resources of public authorities. NO further intervention on part of Frost Appellate Authority is warranted and appeal is hereby disposed off accordingly Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 2 of 6
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference. Respondent: Shri Yogeshwar, CPIO present through Video-Conference.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that now at the stage of second appeal he has received complete information from the Respondent but till date payment has not been given to him.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"1. The appellant Shri Amale Shyam Vasantrao had filed RTI Application on 06 Mar 2023 (Annexure 1). Accordingly, the reply to RTI application was forwarded by CPIO, NDA vide Letter No 201707/RTI-404/Adm dt 10 Apr 2023 (Annexure II). However, the parcel containing the reply letter was returned by the postal authorities on 12 Apr 2023 citing reason as 'Incomplete address' (copy of parcel addressed to the appellant is attached as Annexure III).
2. The appellant had then filed a First Appeal on 11 Apr 2023 (Annexure IV) to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, which was subsequently transferred vide Letter No 296/Apr/D(RTI)/2023 dt 18 Apr 2023 (Annexure V) to First appellate Authority, NDA and the same was received on 26 Apr 2023, In response to the same, FAA, NDA directed CPIO NDA to forward reply to the Appellant on the address provided by the Appellant in his present Appeal within five working days. Accordingly, reply to RTI dt 06 Mar 23 and reply to First Appeal dt 11 Apr 2023 were forwarded to the Appellant vide Letter No 201707/RTI/419-404/Adm dt 18 May 2023 (Annexure VI). However, the parcel containing the letters were again returned by the postal authorities on 23 May 2023 citing reason as Left (Annexure VII).
3. With an intent to the supply the information to the appellant, an attempt was made on 31 May 2023 to seek complete and proper postal / email address of the Appellant on the mobile number provided by the appellant. However, Appellant was reluctant in disclosing the postal/ email address and had used inappropriate language with the staff over the telephone. Therefore, the information to the appellant could not be Page 3 of 6 supplied due to incomplete/ incorrect address provided by the appellant and the attributability of the same lies with the appellant
4. Now, the appellant Shri Amale Shyam Vasantrao has preferred a Second Appeal to the CIC for seeking complete information with respect to queries raised in his RTI Application dt 06 Mar 2023.
5. The details of information sought and reply furnished by CPIO, NDA to the applicant as under. -
Sr. Information Sought Reply
No.
(a) Provide the updated in this connection following letters
information of Non-payment are forwarded herewith
of leave encashment and last (a) Letter No 1200/Gen/Edn dt 02
2 months' salary (le. May Jul 2021 (Annexure VIII)
2002 & Jun 2002) Application (b) Letter No 202902/CMPL/Adm dt
dt. 30 Jan 2023 is attached. 15 Jan 2021 (Annexure IX)
(c) Letter No UA/NDA/4851/AC dt
08 Mar
2021 (Annexure X).
6. The Appellant had sought information with respect to Non-payment of leave encashment and last 2 months salary (ie. May 2002 & Jun 2002). The CPIO had intended to provide the information as sought by the applicant as per the record held by the office. However, the decision of the CPIO could not reached to the appellant for the reason as mentioned at pare 3 above. Further, it was also observed that appellant while filing RTI application had declared his postal address with PIN Code 411038 and while filing appeal he had declared the same postal address with PIN Code 411029. Thus, it can construed that the appellant has advertently or inadvertently declared his incorrect address which has resulted in non- receipt of the decision of the CPIO to the appellant.
7. In view of the above, it is prayed that the present appeal be disposed off as the CPIO and FAA have judiciously exercised their duties in accordance with the statutory provisions of the RTI Act. Further, it is also prayed that the appellant may be counselled to refrain from providing incorrect/ incomplete postal address to the public authority as the same has adversely affected the efficiency of the administration. A scenario has been created wherein. the public authorities have spent most of their time in collecting and furnishing information to the applicant instead of discharging their regular duties and due to incomplete/ incorrect address provided by the appellant, the efforts have gone in vain."
Page 4 of 6Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant has now received complete information from the Respondent.
It further appeared during the hearing that the Appellant is harbouring a grievance related to non-payment of his leave encashment/salary and is not seeking information as envisaged under the RTI Act.
The Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between Page 5 of 6 two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the PIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
In view of this, no intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
However, the Respondent is advised to make efforts to facilitate showing to the Appellant proof of payment.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi-110001.Page 6 of 6
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)