Central Information Commission
Mohd Rafiq Anasari vs Damodar Valley Corporation on 9 December, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DVCOR/A/2021/147944
Mohd Rafiq Anasari ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Damodar Valley Corporation,
RTI Cell, DVC Tower, VIP Road,
Kolkata-700054, West Bengal .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08/12/2022
Date of Decision : 08/12/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10/08/2021
CPIO replied on : 10/09/2021
First appeal filed on : 17/09/2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01/11/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.08.2021 seeking the following information:1 2
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 10.09.2021 by stating as under:-3
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.09.2021. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Sangita Sil, DCEE & CPIO along with Tapas Roy, AD (HR) & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant at the outset narrated at length his grievance regarding his non- employment being a displaced person against acquisition of his ancestral land/property by the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) since 1978 for development of Maithon project. Due to such inaction of the Respondent Public Authority, his family suffered huge financial hardship and mental agony for which he sought intervention of the Commission. In support of his argument, the Appellant gave reference to an order passed by the predecessor bench of CIC in his Complaint no. CIC/MA/C/2008/00232 dated 22.08.2008 and further prayed 4 the Commission that he must be offered employment in lieu of acquisition of his land as committed by the DVC initially.
In response to Appellant's contention, Tapas Roy, CPIO explained that against non-employment of displaced persons numbering 701; a total of persons filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court which was further challenged in the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal no. 1757 of 1992 and the Supreme Court vide order dated 09.04.1992 directed DVC to empanel displaced persons as per the vacancy position and further awarded a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to each displaced person who did not get empanelment/ employment. In compliance with the said direction, a request letter was forwarded to the Appellant on 04.05.2007; however, no response in this regard was received from him till date. As regards the queries raised in the instant RTI Application, the CPIO further submitted that a point wise reply along with the relevant inputs was already provided to the Appellant.
The Appellant interjected to contest the inaction of DVC in awarding meagre sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation instead of offering employment as per the norms which actually calls for strict action. He further alleged that DVC has empanelled ineligible candidates for employment as per their whims and fancies.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the contentions of both the parties observes that the relief claimed in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se and in fact, it is about the Appellant's resolve of bringing to fore his grievance pertaining to his non-empanelment for employment in lieu of his land acquisition by DVC and further seeking clarifications from the CPIO in this regard.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO adequately suffices the queries / clarifications raised in the instant RTI Application as per the provisions of RTI Act.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.5
In this regard, his attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] where in it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act, reference may be had of a 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 two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) However, by taking empathetic view in the matter, the Appellant is advised to pursue his grievance through appropriate administrative mechanism .
Having observed as above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.6
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, attention of the CPIO is invited to the clause 4 of the CIC's hearing notice which is as under -
"....4. All the parties may submit their written submission, if any, to the Commission at least 3 working days before the date of hearing. A copy of the same shall be served upon opposite party. If any party wishes to make online submission, the same may be sent to the Commission's link only viz., http://dsscic.nic.in/online- link-paper-compliance/add....."
In view of the above said point, the CPIO is directed to provide a complete copy of his latest written submission along with the annexures to the Appellant , free of cost to the Appellant within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7