Central Information Commission
M Mehdi Hussain vs Spmcil Security Printing Press ... on 9 August, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/SPPRE/A/2017/134498-BJ
Mr. M. Mehdi Hussain
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Security Printing Press,
Mint Compound, Saifabad,
Hyderabad- 500063
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.08.2018
Date of Decision : 09.08.2018
Date of RTI application 25.01.2017
CPIO's response 24.02.2017
Date of the First Appeal 20.03.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 20.04.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 23.05.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points (I to II) regarding number of redeployed government opted industrial workman, copies of relieving orders of industrial workmen issued by SPP for redeployment, copies of redeployment proceedings orders of SPP industrial workmen issued by DOPT, if redeployment orders not issued by DOPT then under which authority SPP issued redeployment orders, and other issues related thereto. The CPIO vide its letter dated 24.02.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 20.04.2017 for points 2 & 3, stated that some of the redeployed workman (i.e. 3rd party) denied disclosure of their information and for other points, concurred with the CPIO's response. HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:Page 1 of 4
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. G. Krishna Mohan, Dy. Manager (HR) & CPIO and Mr. K. Satyanarayana, Consultant (HR) through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent reiterated the replies of the CPIO / FAA. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 31.07.2018, wherein while explaining the background of the case provided a point-wise response wherein for points 01 to 04 it was submitted that the queries raised in the RTI application were interrogatory in nature seeking reasons/justification/suggestions which could not be disclosed as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, it was submitted that the information held by the Public Authority had already been shared with the Appellant after keeping in view that the information sought had security and legal implications. As regards point II, it was submitted that in Security Printing Press, Hyderabad, there were no employees on contract basis or contract labourers or employees engaged through licence holding contractors. Accordingly, the then PIO had stated that no labour was engaged through contractor and, therefore, the PIO had denied the information on other points II- b, c and d.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 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, 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:
Page 2 of 46. "....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 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 had held as under:
"5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature;
secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was Page 3 of 4 recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1."
The Appellant 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.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु
)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 09.08.2018
Page 4 of 4