Central Information Commission
Vinod Vikram Jadhav vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 19 May, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/ EPFOG/A/2019/111444 -UM
Mr. Vinod Vikram Jadhav
....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनतम
CPIO,
EPFO, RO, 165-A, Surwase Towers,
Railway Lines, Solapur-413001,
Maharashtra
प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.05.2021
Date of Decision : 19.05.2021
Date of RTI application 26-11-2018
CPIO's response 28-12-2018
Date of the First Appeal 07-01-2019
First Appellate Authority's response 04-02-2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 13.03.2019
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought action against the erring officials for not linking UAN with AADHAR and Bank Accounts:-
Page 1 of 7The CPIO vide letter dated 28.12.2018 provided a suitable reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal. The FAA, vide order dated 05.02.2019, directed the PIO to provide information as per law. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide information.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Vinod Vikram Jadhav Respondent: Absent;
The Respondent remained absent during the hearing. The contact number of the Respondent is not available on record despite several attempts to get in touch with the representative of the Public Authority for the scheduled hearing. The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and alleged massive corruption and malpractices in making offline payments to the labours / daily wagers by the Contractors of Barshi Nagarpalika, Solapur District, by not linking their UAN with AADHAR and Bank Accounts. He alleged despite repeated requests to the Senior Officials, they have not linked their UAN with AADHAR and Bank Accounts. Consequently, the Head of the Nagar Palika / Contractors / middlemen in connivance with each other grab the payments which are meant for the labours / workers / daily wagers and thereby committed a punishable offence as per the law. The Appellant further submitted that even after consistent requests, no FIR has been lodged against the culprits who are misappropriating the hard-earned money of the labourers. In addition, the Appellant informed that he had written to the President of India; Prime Minister Office; Director, Sapta Vasooli Sanchalay; Chief Minister, Maharashtra; High Court of Mumbai; Chief Secretary, Maharashtra; Governor of Maharashtra; Director General of Income Tax, Mumbai, Lokayukta, etc., in this regard. The Appellant further relied on its written submission which is taken on record and Page 2 of 7 requested the Commission to take strict action against the erring official and register the FIR against them for misappropriation of funds.
With regard to larger public interest involved in the matter, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest"
must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by Page 3 of 7 banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."
Every action of a Public Authority is expected to be carried out in Public Interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi, etc vs. State of UP and Ors., 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 625 dated 20.09.1990 wherein it had been held as under:
"Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest."
Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of LIC of India vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811 dated 10.05.1995 had held as under:
"Every action of the public authority or the person acting in public interest or its acts give rise to public element, should be guided by public interest. It is the exercise of the public power or action hedged with public element becomes open to challenge."
The Commission also 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 not to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of 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:
Page 4 of 7"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 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.
Page 5 of 7DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant as also considering the serious allegations levelled by him regarding dishonest and fraudulent intent of some Contractors of Barshi Nagarpalika, Solapur District behind non-linking of their UAN with AADHAR and Bank Accounts, the Commission at the outset observes that the issues raised by the Appellant are very pertinent and sensitive. In this Digital Era, the Government has mandated for linking of Unique Identification Numbers / UAN with Bank Accounts and AADHAR, wherever it is necessary, for the convenience of all the stakeholders, for sweeping away the middlemen and for the benefit of public at large so that the payment can be deposited directly on the Bank Accounts of the beneficiaries and corruption by middlemen can be eradicated in the working of all the Public Authorities from the grass root level.
Therefore, in the light of the criticality and sensitivity of the subject matter, the Commission directs the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment to depute a senior official of an appropriate seniority to examine the allegations levelled by the Appellant in his RTI application and furnish the updated status in the matter to the Appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country, under intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित एवं सत्यापित प्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के. राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 19.05.2021 Page 6 of 7 Copy to:
1. Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi, Delhi 110001
2. First Appellate Authority, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Regional Office, 165-A, Surwase Towers, Railway Lines, Solapur-413001, Maharashtra Page 7 of 7