Central Information Commission
Bhawani Shankar Meena vs Department Of Revenue on 22 November, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CBECE/A/2023/135017
CIC/DGSTX/A/2023/137106
CIC/CBECE/A/2023/639442
CIC/CBECE/A/2023/135854
CIC/DOREV/A/2023/645368
CIC/MOHRD/A/2023/138923/CBECE
Bhawani Shankar Meena .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Directorate General of Human Resource
Development, HRM-II Wing, 507, Deep
Shikha Building, Rajendra Place,
New Delhi-110008 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.11.2024
Date of Decision : 21.11.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
is common and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
Page 1 of 11
CIC/CBECE/A/2023/135017
CIC/DGSTX/A/2023/137106
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.07.2023
CPIO replied on : 07.08.2023
First appeal filed on : 08.08.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Nil
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17.08.2023, 05.09.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 29.07.2023 seeking the following information:
"I, Mr. Bhawani Shankar Meena, Additional Commissioner of Customs, CC(Preventive) West Bengal, Kolkata 700001, humbly submits that during the period from 23.10.2019- 31.03.2020, I was posted in CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate, Kolkata (WB) as a Joint Commissioner. During the reporting period from 23.10.2019-31.03.2020, the reporting authority was Shri Roopam Kapoor, Pr. Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata North and Shri A.P.S. Suri, Principal Chief Commissioner, CGST & CX Kolkata Zone was the Reviewing Authority. During the reporting period from 23.10.2019-31.03.2020, I was awarded score of Six (06) in APAR for the Financial Year 2019-20. Therefore, I had made representation to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, New Delhi vide letter dated 29.12.2020 and prayed for up-gradation of Final grading. given in APAR by the Review Authority. I had submitted representation in website Sparrow. irs.gov.in also. However, the decision of referral board for disposal of the representations on ACR/APAR has not been communicated yet.
Therefore, it is requested to communicate the decision of referral board with regard to APAR grading given to me for the reporting period from 23.10.2019-31.03.2020 and provide the certified copy of order of referral board."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.08.2023 stating as under:
"Your representation was decided by the referral Board on 23.09.2022 and it was uploaded on 12.10. 2022 at sparrow on-line."Page 2 of 11
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated nil, held as under.
"In view of the discussion as above, I uphold the reply of the CPIO, DGHRD, New Delhi. The dates mentioned in the reply given by the CPIO can be read as "Representation was decided by the referral Board on 08.12.2021 and it was uploaded on 22.01.22". The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
CIC/CBECE/A/2023/639442 CIC/CBECE/A/2023/135854 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 07.08.2023 First appeal filed on : 07.08.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 10.08.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.08.2023, 27.08.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 09.07.2023 seeking the following information:
"I, Mr. Bhawani Shankar Meena, Additional Commissioner of Customs, CC(Preventive) West Bengal, Kolkata-700001, humbly submits that During the period from 25.11.2020 to 31.03.2021, I was posted in CGST & CX, Howrah Commissionerate, Kolkata (WB) as a Joint Commissioner. During the reporting period from 25.11.2020 to 31.03.2021, the reporting authority was Shri Devendra V. Nagvenkar, Commissioner, CGST & CX, Howrah and Shri A.P.S. Suri, Principal Chief Commissioner, CGST & CX Kolkata Zone was the Reviewing Authority. During the reporting period (25.11.2020 to 31.03.2021), I was awarded score of Seven (07) in APAR for the Year 2020-21. Therefore, I had made representation to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, New Delhi vide letter dated 27.11.2021 and prayed for up-gradation of Final grading given in APAR by the Review Authority. I had submitted representation in website Sparrow. irs.gov.in also. However, the decision of referral board for disposal of the representations on ACR/APAR has not been communicated yet.Page 3 of 11
Therefore, it is requested to communicate the decision of referral board with regard to APAR grading given to me for the reporting period from 25.11.2020 to 31.03.2021."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.08.2023 stating as under:
"Your representation was decided by the referral Board on 23.09.2022 and it was uploaded on 12.10.2022 at sparrow on line."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 10.08.2023, held as under.
"1. It is observed that the CPIO, DGHRD has provided the information to the applicant within prescribed time limit. Further, it is pointed out that in the RTI application the appellant has requested for communicating the decision of the referral Board whereas in the appeal the appellant has requested for providing a certified copy of the decision taken by the referral Board.
2. Hence, it is informed that no additional information can be sought in the RTI appeal. Moreover, the appellant can check the referral Board decision online at sparrow on line. Therefore, the reply provided by the CPIO is satisfactory.
3. In view of the discussion as above, I uphold the reply of the CPIO, DGHRD, New Delhi. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
CIC/DOREV/A/2023/645368 CIC/MOHRD/A/2023/138923/CBECE Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.08.2023 CPIO replied on : 24.08.2023 First appeal filed on : 27.08.2023, 17.08.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 13.09.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.09.2023, 20.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 08.08.2023 seeking the following information:
Page 4 of 11"I, Mr. Bhawani Shankar Meena, Additional Commissioner of Customs, CC(Preventive) West Bengal, Kolkata-700001, humbly submits that during the period from 01.04.2020- 23.11.2020, I was posted in CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate, Kolkata (WB) as a Joint Commissioner. During the reporting period from 01.04.2020- 23.11.2020, the reporting authority was Shri Roopam Kapoor, Pr. Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata North and Shri A.P.S. Suri, Principal Chief Commissioner, CGST & CX Kolkata Zone was the Reviewing Authority. During the reporting period from 01.04.2020-23.11.2020, I was awarded score of Seven (07) in APAR for the Financial Year 2020-21. Therefore, I had made representation to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, New Delhi and prayed for up-gradation of Final grading given in APAR by the Review Authority. I had submitted representation in website Sparrow, irs.gov.in also. However, a certified copy of the decision of referral board w.r.t. mentioned period representations on ACR/APAR has been not communicated yet.
Therefore, it is requested to communicate the decision of referral board with regard to APAR grading given to me for the reporting period from 01.04.2020-23.11.2020 and provide the certified copy of order of referral board."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.08.2023 stating as under:
"The desired information was already uploaded on 17.10.2022 by the custodian after approval of Referral Board. Please checked through SAPPAROW IRS"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 13.09.2023, held as under.
"It is observed that the CPIO, DGHRD has provided the information to the applicant within prescribed time limit. The referral Board decision has already been uploaded on 17.10.2022. Hence, the appellant can check the referral Board decision at sparrow online. Therefore, the reply provided by the CPIO is satisfactory.
In view of the discussion as above, I uphold the reply of the CPIO, DGHRD, New Delhi. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal seeking certified copy of decision of referral board on his APAR representations (as referred above).
Page 5 of 11Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Mr. Anupam Paliwal, Deputy Commissioner-cum-CPIO accompanied with Ms. Saloni Gupta, Superintendent present in person.
A written submission dated 15.11.2024 filed by the appellant is taken on record, contents of the same are reproduced below, for the sake of clarity:
"Sir, With due respect, it is submitted that above appeals were filed by applicant before Hon'ble Central Information Commission, New Delhi, under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for seeking relief against the orders of First Appellate Authority, to seek certified copy of referral board decision w.r.t. his representation made to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, New Delhi, for up gradation of Final grading given in Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR). Since the information sought vide above RTI applications by the applicant are within the purview of Section 2(f) (i) read with Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, the First Appellate authority have been requested to pass an order directing to the CPIO to provide the certified copy of the referral board decision on APAR representation. Therefore, it is praying before Hon'ble Central Information Commission to pass an appropriate order directing to the lower authority to provide the certified copy of the referral board decision on Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) representations to applicant. It is also requested to exempt the applicant from attending personal hearings and pass an order on the basis of written submissions of applicant or as deemed fit by Hon'ble Central Information Commission."
Written submission dated 18.11.2024 in each case has been filed by the respondent, which is taken on record, contents of the same (Case File No. wise) are reproduced below, for ready reference:
CIC/CBECE/A/2023/135017 and CIC/DGSTX/A/2023/137106 "...Comments on the written submissions filed by the appellant:
The appellant has sought information under RTI requesting to communicate decision of referral Board with regard to APAR grading given to him for the reporting period from 23.10.2019 to 31.03.2020 and providing the certified copy of order of referral board claiming that he had submitted representation in website Sparrow.irs.gov.in and decision of referral board Page 6 of 11 for disposal of ine representation on ACR/APAR has not been communicated yet.
It is submitted that CPIO in his reply dated 07.08.20230 and FAA vide his order has informed him that the representation was decided by the referral board on 08.12.2021 and it was uploaded on 22.01.2022 at sparrow on line. The appellant can access the information in the portal and same is not required to be provided to him again. The appellant has not disputed the availability of the required information in the portal accessible to him. As the information sought by him is already disclosed and available to him in the sparrow portal, seeking the same by way of RTI is not proper and appeal filed by him is liable to be rejected.
CIC/CBECE/A/2023/639442 and CIC/CBECE/A/2023/135854:
"....Comments on the written submissions filed by the appellant: The appellant has sought information under RTI requesting to communicate decision of referral Board with regard to APAR grading given to him for the reporting period from 25.11.2020 to 31.03.2021 claiming that he had submitted representation in website Sparrow.irs.gov.in and decision of referral board for disposal of the representation on ACR/APAR has not been communicated yet. Whereas, the appellant in his appeal filed before FAA has sought certified copy of the referral board decision, which is additional information It is submitted that CPIO in his reply dated 07.08.2023 has informed the appellant that the decision of referral board was uploaded on 12.10.2022 at sparrow on line. The appellant can access the information in the portal and same is not required to be provided to him again. The appellant has not disputed the availability of the required information in the portal accessible to him. As the information sought by him is already available to him in the sparrow portal, seeking the same again by way of RTI is not proper and appeal filed by him is liable to be rejected."
CIC/DOREV/A/2023/645368 and CIC/MOHRD/A/2023/138923/CBECE:
".....Comments on the written submissions filed by the appellant: The appellant has sought information under RTI requesting to communicate decision of referral Board with regard to APAR grading given to him for the reporting period from 01.04.2020 to 23.11.2020 and provide the certified copy of order of referral board claiming that he had submitted representation in website Sparrow.irs.gov.in and decision of referral board Page 7 of 11 for disposal of the representation on ACR/APAR has not been communicated yet.
It is submitted that CPIO in his reply has informed him that the decision of referral board was uploaded on 12.10.2022 at sparrow on line. The appellant can access the information in the portal and same is not required to be provided to him again. The appellant has not disputed the availability of the required information in the portal accessible to him. As the information sought by him is already available to him in the sparrow portal, seeking the same by way of RTI is not proper and appeal filed by him is liable to be rejected."
Respondent by inviting attention of the bench towards the contents of averred written submissions stated that reply against each RTI application has already been provided to the appellant by informing him that decision of referral board was uploaded on the sparrow line which can be easily accessed by him. Upon being queried by the Commission, he replied that appellant is still working with the Respondent Public Authority as Additional Commissioner of Customs, CC(Preventive), West Bengal.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant appeal was non-furnishing of certified copy of information by the CPIO. In response to which, the respondent claimed that it has already been informed to the appellant that he can get the requisite information i.e. final decisions of referral board on his APAR representation from sparrow portal which is in public domain.
Here, the Commission finds no infirmity in the replies furnished by the CPIO as the same were found to be in lines with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Further, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contention of appellant regarding furnishing of certified copies of information even when it is available online through specific application software accessible to the appellant by logging-in the same. This special online restricted access facility prevents any documents being uploaded by any other person than those authorized and the Officers themselves, thus, eliminating possibility of any unauthorized document being uploaded there. In this regard, the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs R S Misra on 21 November, 2017 is notable, wherein it was held as under:Page 8 of 11
"...53. The preamble shows that the RTI Act has been enacted only to make accessible to the citizens the information with the public authorities which hitherto was not available. Neither the Preamble of the RTI Act nor does any other provision of the Act disclose the purport of the RTI Act to provide additional mode for accessing information with the public authorities which has already formulated rules and schemes for making the said information available. Certainly if the said rules, regulations and schemes do not provide for accessing information which has been made accessible under the RTI Act, resort can be had to the provision of the RTI Act but not to duplicate or to multiply the modes of accessing information.
54. This Court is further of the opinion that if any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to as there is absence of the very basis for invoking the provisions of RTI Act, namely, lack of transparency. In other words, the provisions of RTI Act are not to be resorted to if the same are not actuated to achieve transparency.
55. Section 2(j) of the RTI Act reveals that the said Act is concerned only with that information, which is under the exclusive control of the 'public authority'.
Providing copies/certified copies is not separate from providing information. The SCR not only deal with providing 'certified copies' of judicial records but also deal with providing 'not a certified copy' or simply a 'copy' of the document. The certification of the records is done by the Assistant Registrar/Branch Officer or any officer on behalf of the Registrar. In the opinion of this Court, in case of a statute which contemplates dissemination of information as provided for by the Explanation to Section 4 of the RTI Act then in such situation, public will have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain such information.
56. There are other provisions of the RTI Act which support the said position, namely, Sections 4(2), (3) and (4) which contemplate that if an information is disseminated then the public will have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information. In the present case, the dissemination of information under the provisions of the SCR squarely fits into the definition of "disseminated" as provided in the aforesaid Explanation to Section 7(9) and the Preamble contemplate a bar for providing information if it „disproportionally diverts the resources of the public authority‟.
57. Section 42 also provides that it shall be constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of sub- Section (1) thereof and to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications including intervals so that the public has minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information.
Page 9 of 1158. A Division Bench of this Court in Prem Lata CPIO Trade Marks Registry, Delhi Vs. Central Information Commission & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7604 in the context of accessing information from the Registrar of Trade Marks was concerned with the question whether information suo- motu being made available by a public authority through means of information including intervals in fulfillment of obligations under Section 4 of the Act can be requested for under Section 6 of the Act. For detailed reasons therein, it was held that neither can information already suo-motu made available by the public authority in discharge of obligations under Section 4(b) be requested for under Section 6 of the RTI Act nor the CPIO was required to reject the said request giving reasons. It was held that the purport of the RTI Act is to make the information available to the public at large and the same can be deciphered also from Section 44 of the RTI Act providing for dissemination of information in a cost effective and easy mode to the extent possible. Consequently, information which is already available under any other statutory mechanism will not be covered under the provision of the RTI Act. (emphasis supplied) Similarly, observations of Hon'ble CIC in Shri Ram Singh vs. Central Public Information Officer (Decision No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000379/SB) dated 19th September 2016, are relevant:
"The RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information to the public including through internet so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information. Further, once information has been provided in public domain and on website then the information is no longer held by or under the control of any public authority and hence, is no longer accessible as 'right to information'. Thus, the action of the CPIO is consonance with the RTI Act. The Commission, further observes that under the RTI Act only information available on records has to be provided, which has already been furnished to the appellant by the respondent."
Further, the Hon'ble CIC in K. Lall vs. M.K. Bagri (File No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00112) vide Order dated 12th April 2007 has held the following:
Page 10 of 11"...unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority, that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely, or on payment of a pre-determined price, that information cannot be said to be 'held' or 'under the control of' the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. This interpretation is further strengthened by the provisions of the RTI Act in Sections 4(2), 4(3) and 4(4)..."
Hence, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in these appeals and upholds the submissions of the respondent.
Nonetheless, in the spirit of the RTI Act, the respondent is directed to share a copy of his written submissions pertaining to all these cases, along with enclosures, free of cost with the Appellant, within one week of the date of receipt of this order.
With these observations, the instant appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Directorate General of Human Resource Development, HRM-II Wing, 507, Deep Shikha Building, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008 Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)