Central Information Commission
Henri Tiphagne vs National Human Rights Commission on 29 April, 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/NHRCM/A/2023/615383
Shri Henri Tiphagne ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
National Human Rights Commission
Date of Hearing : 23.04.2024
Date of Decision : 26.04.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.07.2022
PIO replied on : 16.08.2022
First Appeal filed on : 15.09.2022
First Appellate Order on : 13.10.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 28.03.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Kindly provide the date of placing our response dated 22.06.2022 before the Hon'ble Commission for consideration and order.
2. Kindly provide the copy of orders if any issued by the Hon'ble Commission on considering our response dated 22.06.2022
3. Kindly provide the copy of the spot enquiry report of the Investigation Division, NHRC with the reports received from the Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoor
4. Kindly provide the copies of reply u/s 16 of PHRA from Sh. Ankit Mittal, the then Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoor and Sh. Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay, SHO, PS Bharatkup, Chitrakoot received by the Hon'ble Commission.
5. And also the copy of enquiry report received from Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh by opening enquiry and departmental action against both erring police officers i.e. (i) Sh. Rajnish Kumar Yadav, then Circle Officer, City, Chitrakoot and (ii) Sh. Pankaj Kr. Panday, then Kotwali PS In-Charge, Chitrakoot for not upholding the statutory and constitutional mandates while detaining a person in his police station as directed by the Hon'ble Commission"
Page 1 The CPIO vide letter dated 16.08.2022 replied as under:-
"1. Your communication dated 22/06/2022 was related to case No. 19778/24/20/2020, which was already closed by the Hon'ble Commission vide proceedings dated 19/05/2022. Therefore, the communications received vide diary No. 97527/CR/2022 and 97702/CR/2022 dated 22/06/2022 were electronically attached with the case No. 19778/24/20/2020. Being a closed case, it was not placed before the Hon'ble Commission.
2. As Sl. No. 1 above.
3. Copies of the reports dated 06.01.2021 (07 pages), 06.02.2021 (05 pages) and 27.12.2021 (11 pages) received from SP Chitrakoot in the matter shall be supplied on receipt of the requisite amount mentioned in para 4.
However, regarding the report of the Investigation Division, you have already been informed vide letter dated 15.07.2022 that the competent authority has decided not to supply the documents/information sought by you. A copy of the letter is enclosed herewith.
4. In this regard, copies of the communication received from the following State authorities Govt. of UP shall be supplied on receipt of the requisite amount:
Reports Dated: 21.01.2021 (from SHO Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay) (10 pages), 06.02.2021 (from the then SP Chitrakoot Shri Ankit Mittal) (05 pages which are already charged in para 3), 06.08.2021 (from Joint Secretary) (02 pages), 08.10.2021 (03 pages) & 30.12.2021 (from Under Secretary) (02 pages), 03.01.2022 (from DM Chitrakoot) (23 pages) and 09.03.2022 (from ASP/Banda) (03 pages), which are self explanatory. No other document as reply u/s 16 of PHRA from Sh Ankit Mittal and Shri Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay are available on the electronic record of the case file 19778/24/20/2020.
All these documents consists of 66 pages. Therefore, you are requested to deposit the documents charges amounting Rs. 132/- (662 per page) by cash at the counter of RTI unit of the Commission or by demand draft or IPO to NHRC at New Delhi.
5. As mentioned in para 3 & 4 above"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.09.2022. FAA vide order dated 13.10.2022 held as under :
Shri Henri Tiphagne from Madurai, Tamil Nadu has submitted an RTI appeal, dated 15th $eptember, 2022, received in the concerned Section on 19th September, 2022 stating that he is not satisficd with the information given by the CPIO. In the initial RTI application, dated 19th July, 2022 the appellant had requested point-wise information about placing his request before the Commission and it's outcome. The CPIO, vide communication dated 16th August, 2022 while providing point-wise information to the appellant also informed that he can get the copies of various reports, including that of Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot, dated 6th January, 202.1. and 6th February, 2021.by paying the Page 2 requisite amount." . '. Tt was alsó .informed by the CPIO that the competent authority had decided not to supply the copy of the report of the Investigation Division of the Commission to the.appellant, which: was already communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 15th July, 2022. The CPIO had again attacheda copy of the.said letter for. information of the appellant. Perused the material on record. provided the available information to the appellant. It is found that: the CPIO had . . ': There is nothirnig: 1left in the Appeal. The. appeal is disposed off accordingly Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 19.04.2024 has been received from the CPIO, NHRC and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
"..With reference to above cited Notice received from Hon'ble Central Information Commission, as directed, the following facts are hereby submitted please:-
(i) An online RTI application dated 19.07.2022 from Shri Henri Tiphagne was received in the RTI Unit of the Commission. The said RTI request was responded vide the PIO letter dated 16.08.2022 (copy enclosed for ready reference please). In the said letter, regarding the reports received from State Authorities, the applicant was informed that the same shall be supplied after receipt of requisite fee, whereas regarding Spot Enquiry Report, it was informed that the Competent Authority has decided not to supply the document/information being internal in nature and the same was already informed to the applicant vide the Commission letter dated 15.07.2022 (copy enclosed for ready reference please). However, as the RTI applicant had not deposited the requisite amount as prescribed under RTI Act, hence, the reports received from the State Authorities as mentioned in the said PIO reply, could not provided to the applicant.
(ii) The individual had submitted First Appeal to the Learned FAA and his Appeal was disposed off vide FAA Order dated 13.10.2022 (copy enclosed for ready reference please) wherein it was stated that the CPIO has also informed that Competent Authority had decided not to supply the copy of the report of the Investigation Division of the Commission to the Appellant which was already communicated vide letter dated 15.07.2022. The FAA found that the CPIO has provided all available information to the Appellant and nothing left in the Appeal.
(iii) Since the Competent Authority vide office Note dated 12.07.2022 (copy enclosed for ready reference please) has decided not to supply the Spot Enquiry Report of the Investigation Division stating that it is internal document and not to be supplied. The Commission vide its letter dated 15.07.2022 has already been informed in writing about the same and moreover, the PIO has reiterated this fact while responding to RTI request enclosing a copy of the said letter.
Page 3
(iv) The individual has been asked to deposit requisite amount to supply the document as per the provision of the RTI Act 2005, however, the individual has not deposited the requisite fee and hence the sought document could not supplied.
(v) (v) The individual has referred Section 18 (d) of PHR Act 1993 for seeking a copy of spot enquiry report. The Sub-Section 18(d) of the PHR Act, 1993 states to provide a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. However, the Spot Enquiry Report, submitted by the Commission's team u/s 14(4) of the PHR Act, 1993, was meant for the NHRC, to be considered by the Commission (NHRC) u/s 14(5) PHRA, 1993. Regarding decision on Spot Enquiry the individual has already been informed as explained above.
(vi) (vi) The individual has mentioned NHRC Regulations 43(2) of NHRC (Procedure) Amendment Regulations 1997 which states as under:-
"Copies of Enquiry Reports or orders passed finally disposing of matters by the Commission shall be furnished free of cost to the petitioner or his representative".
Further, the Section 43(3) of the Regulations states that:-
"Unless any document is classified by the Commission as Confidential, copy thereof would be available to the parties in the matter on payment of reasonable fee raised to meet the cost. Every effort should be made to provide the copies with utmost expedition and, in any case, not later than one week of the date of request".
Regarding, the provision of Regulations 43(2), it is stated that it has been seen from the CMIS records of the Commission, the complainant was supplied letter dated 19.05.2022 (copy enclosed for ready reference please) which was bearing the final proceedings of the Commission. Moreover, there is provision under the RTI Act, 2005 to provide the requisite documents after depositing the requisite fee of Rs. 21- per page, and this provisions cannot be diluted & linked with the PHR Act, 1993 or the NHRC (Procedure) Amendment Regulations 1997.
(vii) Here it is once again reiterated that the individual has sought information under RTI Act 2005 and the individual was informed that copies of reports received from State Authorities shall be supplied on payment of requisite fee of Rs. 132/- (Rs. 21- per page) which he had not deposited and therefore, the individual was not supplied the desired reports. As far as the Spot Enquiry Report is concerned, the individual was already informed that the same cannot be supplied due to decision taken by the Competent Authority in this regard.
(viii) In view of the above, it is submitted that the CPIO has duly discharged the onus to provide the information available on record. The Learned FAA in his order dated 13.10.2022 has endorsed the response given by the PIO..."
Page 4 Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Ms. Vanishka Mohta- Authorised Representative of the Appellant.
Respondent: Mr. Ajet Kumar Sinha, SO, NHRC The Authorised Representative of the Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished by the PIO till date. She further stated that the spot enquiry/investigation report as sought at point No. 3 of the RTI Application has not been furnished by the Respondent. She stated that the PIO has not claimed any exemption clause while the denying the spot enquiry report. Furthermore, as per Section 18 of the Protection of Human Right Act, the NHRC is under an obligation to furnish the report to the Appellant. She stated that the spot enquiry report has been incorrectly denied and insisted to impose penalty upon the CPIO.
The PIO stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly furnished to the Appellant. He further stated that the competent authority vide office Note dated 12.07.2022 has decided not to supply the Spot Enquiry Report of the Investigation Division stating that it is an internal document.
Decision:
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing observes that the Appellant has sought spot enquiry report of the investigation division of NHRC related to his case, which has been denied by the PIO on the ground of it being an internal document. Commission notes that while denying the information the PIO shall endeavor to quote the correct provision under which information is exempted under RTI Act. Commission notes that being an 'internal document' is not a ground for denial of information under RTI Act. This may not be out of place to mention that the objective of the RTI Act is to bring accountability and transparency in the functioning of the public authority.
In the given circumstances, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish the spot enquiry/investigation report as sought at point No. 3 of the RTI Application along with necessary annexures if any , as available in their records, with regards to the instant RTI Application, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO. In doing so PIO must make sure that information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the Appellant and same must be redacted under section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005 prior to the said disclosure.
Page 5 However, as regards the other points of the RTI Application, the Commission is of the considered opinion that an appropriate response has been furnished by the PIO. No further action lies.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)