Central Information Commission
Ranjan Kumar Pradhan vs National Building Construction ... on 28 April, 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/NBCCL/A/2018/150411-BJ
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pradhan
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Chief General Manager
NBCC (India) Ltd.
NBCC Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.04.2020
Date of Decision : 28.04.2020
Date of RTI application 05.05.2018
CPIO's response 03.07.2018
Date of the First Appeal 18.06.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 06.07.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 08.02.2019
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 11 points regarding the construction of New toilets & renovation of existing toilets for Boys and Girls including Maintenance in the identified school in Kendrapara and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 03.07.2018, provided a point-wise information to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 06.07.2018, upheld the CPIO's response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pradhan through TC;
Respondent: Ms. Manjeeta Mahajan through WhatsApp;Page 1 of 4
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that complete and satisfactory information was not provided to him. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the response of the CPIO/FAA and further submitted that for voluminous information, inspection of records was offered to him which was not availed off. While contesting the averments of the Respondent, the Appellant submitted that a large scam corruption was involved in the matter and therefore, he desired the requisite information. The Appellant however agreed to inspect the records offered by the Respondent.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent wherein the reply/order of the CPIO/FAA was reiterated.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent through an e mail dated 18.04.2020, wherein it was stated that the information was sought by the applicant vide application dated 5.5.18 which was sent to PIO in Orissa without mentioning any name on the letter. However, as per record of RTI cell at HO, the same was received in RTI cell on 29.6.18 from Orissa office. The information was supplied to the applicant on 3.7.18 which was within 4 days of receiving the RTI application. In view of the above, it was clear that prompt action taken by the CPIO in furnishing the information to the applicant. Moreover, full information was supplied to him and offered him to visit the site for inspecting voluminous documents which was also never resisted by the applicant. The applicant made first appeal on 18.06.2018 citing non-submission of reply of his RTI application by CPIO. The First Appellate Authority after examining the RTI application along with the reply of CPIO as well as his appeal dated 18.06.2018 replied suitably vide letter no. NBCC/RTI A/3299/2018/890 dated 06.07.2018. It was mentioned that after perusal of all the documents, it appears that CPIO had already provided the desired information as per RTI Act 2005 vide his letter no. NBCC/RTI/3299/2018/870 dated 03.07.2018. In view of the above and providing full information to the applicant, the appeal has no merit and was requested to be dismissed.
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, 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 and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), 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 Page 2 of 4 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 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':
"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 Page 3 of 4 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 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."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directed the Respondent to offer an inspection of records 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, as agreed.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (नबमल जुल्का) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) K.L. Das (के .एल.िास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 28.04.2020 Page 4 of 4