Central Information Commission
K R Vijayakumar vs Directorate Of General Of Health ... on 28 June, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.:- CIC/DTGHS/C/2017/602234-BJ
Mr. K. R. Vijayakumar
.... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Deputy Director (TF)
O/o Directorate General Health Service (Leprosy Division)
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
Room No. 758 - A, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi - 110011
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.06.2019
Date of Decision : 28.06.2019
Date of filing of RTI application 19.01.2016
CPIO's response 08.02.2016
Date of filing the First appeal 13.02.2016
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 Points in respect of the copy of the office proceeding note from the page no.92 onwards from the date of 10th June, 2015 and up-to-date from Leprosy Section, O/o DGHS to fill up the post of Administrative Officer in the pay scale Rs.8000-275-13500 (pre-revised), General Central Service, Group 'A' Gazetted, Non- Ministerial in Central Leprosy Teaching & Research Institute (CLT&RI), Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu, and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 08.02.2016, stated that the files relating to filling of the post of Administrative Officer in CLTRI, Chengalpattu and status of RR of Administrative Officer were under submission in Ministry of Health & FW hence the requisite information would be provided when the files were received back. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA's response, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.Page 1 of 5
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent;
Respondent: Ms. Teresa Francis, Dy. Dir. and Mr. Anjan Kr. Gupta, ASO;
The Complainant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. K. Ramesh, DIO at NIC studio at Kanchipuram confirmed the absence of the Complainant. The Respondent informed the Commission that this matter had been dealt with earlier also and the decision of the Commission dated 08.05.2017 had been complied with. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 25.06.2019 wherein it was stated that subsequent to providing the response to the Complainant by the CPIO, they had also sent reminders to the Ministry of Health and FW, CCD Section on 29.02.2016, 27.07.2016, 04.01.2017 and 23.03.2017 to provide the status of the case. However, the status of Recruitment Rules was not received, till date. Due to the absence of the information, the First Appeal could not be replied. The RTI Applicant had filed a Second Appeal before the Commission which was heard on 06.04.2017. As desired by the Commission therein, the CPIO had provided the list of RTI applications/ Appeals received from the Complainant from 04.01.2013 to 29.02.2016. The M/o H&FW, CCD Section had sent the concerned file (showing the Notes of present status of Recruitment Rules of Administrative Officer of CLTRI, Chengalpattu) on 06.04.2017 morning on the date of hearing before the Commission which was brought to the Notice of the Commission and as directed was sent to the Applicant on 20.04.2017. While referring to the decision of the Commission dated 08.05.2017, it was stated that in compliance with the decision CPIO requested the Applicant vide letter dated 30.05.2017 to inspect the relevant records of his RTI application after 2nd week of June, 2017 as per his convenience. In response the Applicant requested to issue Official Tour Order (Chengalpattu to new Delhi) as he was working as UDC in CLTRI, Chengalpattu vide letter dated 12.06.2017. The CPIO replied stating that his request for treating the visit as official tour could not be agreed to as there was no provision in RTI Act, 2005 and that he was informed to visit Leprosy Section, Dte GHS, new Delhi to inspect the records/ files at his own cost vide letter dated 28.06.2017. Thereafter Applicant sent Rs. 30/- by way of 3 IPOs for providing information i.r.o points 1 (a) and 1 (c) vide letter dated 03.07.2017 which was provided to him on 19.07.2017. The information relating to points 1 (b) (i) to (viii) had already been provided to him vide letter dated 08.05.2017. As regards the Second Appeal/ Complaint dated 28.04.2017 regarding incomplete information provided i.r.o. File No. CIC/YA/A/2016/00503, it was stated that all the information had been provided to the Applicant.
In addition in another written submission dated 26.06.2019, it was informed that a meeting was held under Single Window System with UPSC on 03.04.2017 wherein certain corrections were suggested. As per suggestions of UPSC the revised RRs were uploaded on the Ministry's website. It was decided to upgrade the post from Group B to Group A in 1997. The contention of the Complainant to make the post of Administrative Officer as a promotional post was not feasible. Thus the matter is still under consultation with the UPSC to finalize the RRs.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, Page 2 of 5 papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of Page 3 of 5 decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"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. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had 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.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether Page 4 of 5 respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
The Complainant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Complainant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 28.06.2019 Page 5 of 5