Central Information Commission
Shehzad Ahmed vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 24 March, 2020
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/NPCOI/A/2018/141631-BJ
Mr. Shehzad Ahmed
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.
12-N-14, Vikram Sarabhai Bhawan, Anushakti Nagar
Mumbai - 400094
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.03.2020
Date of Decision : 23.03.2020
Date of RTI application 14.09.2017
CPIO's response 04.10.2017/
30.10.2017
Date of the First Appeal 26.10.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 13.12.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 03.07.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points regarding the daily progress report, entire file and note sheets which had been generated in respect of his requests made on 10.09.2014 submitted through NAPS, Narora and 08.05.2017 submitted through NPCIL HQ and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 04.10.2017, enclosed a point-wise response regarding CHSS facilities in NPCIL. Dissatisfied with the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 30.10.2017, furnished response on remaining points. The FAA, vide its order dated 13.12.2017, directed the CPIO to offer inspection for point 01 on any mutually convenient date within a month.Page 1 of 5
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Shehzad Ahmed through VC;
Respondent: Mr. M. P. Rath, DGM (HR), Bulandshahar and Mr. B. B. Upadhyay, CPIO & Law Officer, Bulandshahar and Mr. S. K. Srivastava, Addl. Chief Engineer & CPIO, NPCIL Studio and Mr. V. S. Kannan, DGM and Mr. N. S. Rautaray, Sr. Manager (Policy) through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought pertained to deprivation of his mandated service rights/ right to health was not provided by the Respondent, till date. He further submitted that wrong, misleading, self-serving and incomplete information was furnished by the CPIO vide letter dated 30.10.2017. Furthermore, he submitted that the direction of the Nodal CPIO's letter dated 04.10.2017 for offering inspection on points 01 & 02 of the application was not complied with, till date. Inspection on point no. 01 was only offered to him which was not availed by him since it pertained to daily progress report in respect of his own requests made on 10.09.2014 and 08.05.2017 and that he desired to inspect the list of all such employees whose dependent family members to whom medical facilities under CHSS from Old HQ/previous old HQ/any other unit place, etc. were extended. He further alleged that medical facilities under CHSS were extended to several employees in a similar case but the same was denied to him and therefore, he desired to have the information sought in the RTI application. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the reply of the CPIO/FAA and submitted that the available information had already been shared with the Appellant on 04.10.2017/30.10.2017 and for other points, opinion/hypothetical questions were raised which was responded suitably as per the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Inspection of documents was also offered to the Appellant thrice but he did not avail the same. The Respondent further submitted that medical benefits under CHSS were granted to the employees as per their extant guidelines and that the matter of the Appellant was examined by the competent authority appropriately. The Appellant contested the averment of the Respondent and submitted that his grievance petition was also not forwarded for redressal by the Public Authority. On being queried by the Commission whether there was any grievance redressal mechanism in the Respondent Public Authority, the Respondent replied in the affirmative and submitted that they have In-house handling authority in NPCIL who dealt with the grievance matters of the employees.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 28.02.2020 wherein while narrating the background of the case, it was submitted that delayed, misleading, self serving and incomplete information was provided by the CPIO vide reply dated 30.10.2017. Therefore, it was inter-alia prayed to the Commission to direct the Respondent, NPCIL and NAPS to furnish the requested information without any delay and to impose penalty on the CPIO and to grant cost of this Appeal and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for refusing the information.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 01/05.03.2020 wherein while reiterating the chronological sequence of the event, it was submitted that in compliance with the directions of the FAA, inspection in respect of point 01 was offered to the Appellant but he did attend the inspection. With regard to 2nd Appeal of the Appellant, it was submitted that the same was examined in detail and discussed with the concerned agencies. Moreover, it was found that response had been provided to the Appellant as Page 2 of 5 per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. In view of the above, it was submitted that all relevant information as per NPCIL records had been provided.
The Commission felt that correct and timely response is the essence of the RTI mechanism enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
With regard to providing a clear and cogent response to the Complainant, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non- disclosure."
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed ".....that a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act Page 3 of 5 to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only.
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at."
The Commission also noted that it should be the endeavour of the CPIO to ensure that maximum assistance should be provided to the RTI applicants to ensure the flow of information. In this context, the Commission referred to the OM No.4/9/2008-IR dated 24.06.2008 issued by the DoP&T on the Subject "Courteous behavior with the persons seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005" wherein it was stated as under:
"The undersigned is directed to say that the responsibility of a public authority and its public information officers (PIO) is not confined to furnish information but also to provide necessary help to the information seeker, wherever necessary."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the FAA to re-examine the RTI application and furnish a clear, cogent and precise reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission further advises the competent authority within the Public Authority to look into the grievance of the Appellant in accordance with the extant guidelines. It is also noted that the public authority needs to evolve a robust grievance redressal mechanism so that shoulders of RTI are not being used for a solution to the administrative problems.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
(Bimal Julka) (नबमल जुल्का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.िास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 23.03.2020 Copy to:-Page 4 of 5
1. Chairman and Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Nabhikiya Urja Bhavan, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai - 400 094, India
2. Executive Director and First Appellate Authority, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., 12-S-26, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai 400094 Page 5 of 5