Central Information Commission
Shri S. P. Goyal vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 21 January, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01491, 1493 & 1494 all dated 18.8.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri S. P. Goyal
Respondent - Department of Personnel & Training
Decision announced: 21.1.2010
Facts:
These are three appeals moved by Shri S. P. Goyal of Marine Lines, Mumbai before the Department of Personnel & Training.
FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2008/01491 In this case the request dated 6.3.08 of Shri Goyal is as follows:
"1. Please inform that the appeal filed by any citizen under 19 (3) before the Central Information Commission is subject to give the opportunity of hearing to the applicant or Central Information Commission can decide the appeal without giving the opportunity of hearing the applicant on the basis of ground of appeal in Appeal 19 (3) under Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. Please inform whether all public authorities have complied with section 4 of Right to Information Act, 2005 if not then which is the authority to take action against the such public authorities for non-compliance of section 4 of Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. please inform whether section 4 (1) (d) applicable to all administrative authorities such as quasi-judicial proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Customs as well as Income Tax Appellate tribunal and Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) or not.
4. Please inform administrative or quasi-judicial decisions are always judicial orders or otherwise.
5. Please inform whether the section 4 (1) (d) applicable to the court of law or only applicable up to the Tribunal which are part of administrative Central of Government of India.
6. Please inform whether there is any time limit to decide the appeal by the Central Information Commission or State Chief Information Commission.1
7. Please inform if State Chief Information Commission is not deciding the appeal for the last 2 years to whom the Citizens should represent to get the appeal decided.
8. Please inform Central Information Commission is bound by Right to Information Act, 2005 to take action against delay over 30 days for providing the information to the Citizens or deciding the 1st appeal (19(1) beyond 30 days."
To this, Shri S. P. Goyal has received a point wise reply dated 20.3.08 from CPIO Shri D. C. Sharma, Section Officer, as follows:
"1. The procedure is given in the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005. A copy of the same is enclosed. As per section 19(3) of the Act, a second appeal against the decision under sub section (I) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission :
Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
2. Right to Information Act, 2005 itself provides for statutory obligation of every public authority for suo moto disclosures within their resources. This Department has issued following instructions to all the Section 18(1) (f) of the Act empowers the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission to receive or inquire into any complaint in respect of any matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under the Act. Further powers have been provided to the Commission under section 19(8) of the Act.
3. Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act mandates that a public authority provide reasons for its administrative or quasi- judicial to the affected persons. However, the CIC in a decision relating to Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal inter-alia held that the sec. 4(1)(d) does not apply to judicial proceedings conducted by a Court or a Tribunal as it refers to the administrative and quasi- judicial decision of public authorities.
24. This does not form part of information under the RTI Act.
Some instance for the same may be given to provide information on this Para. However, section 18(3) states that the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall, while inquiring into any matter under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely:
a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things;
b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents;
c) receiving evidence on affidavit;
d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from
any court or officer;
e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or
documents; and
f) any other matter, which may be prescribed.
5. The information has been given at Para (4) above.
6. No time limit has been provided for in the Act for decision by the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission.
7. This does not form part of information under the RTI Act.
8. The Central Information Commission is also a public authority under the RTI Act 2005 and is covered under the provisions of the Act."
In this case, Shri S. P. Goyal's appeal of 15.4.08 was allowed by the order of Ms. Anuradha Chagti, OSD on 8.5.08, as follows:
"Therefore, under section 19 of the RTI Act, the appeal is allowed and the following information is being given:Point No. 1 & 2
Satisfied with the reply.Point No. 3
Has stressed on this issue i.e. section 4 (1) (d). Whereas it has been informed that the section mandates that every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons however, the Central Information Commission in a decision pertaining to case of Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. Income Tax, Appellate Tribunal inter-alia held that the 3 section 4 (1) (d) does not apply to judicial proceedings conducted by a Court or a Tribunal as it refers to the administrative and quasi- judicial decisions of public authorities. The decision of the Central Information Commission is binding under section 19 (7) of the RTI act, 2005.Point No. 4 & 5
This information is not held by this division. RTI Act extends to Public Authorities as defined under section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.Point No. 8
Like any other public authority Central Information Commission is governed by the provisions of the RTI act, 2005."
Shri Goyal's prayer before us in this and in both the other cases in second appeal is as follows:
"True & clear information/ clarification be provided against my application dated 6.2008."
In both, this and the other cases, the appellant has protested that "Appeal 19 (1) was decided without giving hearing which is contrary to the provision of Right to Information Act, 2005."
FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2008/01493 In this case, Shri S. P. Goyal moved an application before the PMO on 19.2.08 seeking the following information:
"Please inform whether there is committee and competent officer who could give clarification on certain points or Right to Information Act, 2005 where different views are taken by the Public Authorities of Central Information Commission Officer as well as giving vague reply under Right to Information Act, 2005."
Upon transfer of this application to the DOPT, Shri Goyal received the following response from CPIO Shri D. C. Sharma, Section Officer dated 13.3.08 :
"Opinion / suggestions do not form part of 'information' under Sec. 2(f) of the RTI Act. Whereas, you have raised questions in regard to the reply made by the Public Information Officer, Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and judgment has been passed and it is binding under sec. 19(7) of the RTI Act, 2005."4
Here again the first appeal was allowed and the following further information provided by Appellate Authority Ms. Anuradha Chagti, OSD:
"Under Sec. 19 of the RTI Act, the appeal is allowed.
There is no committee to give clarifications on certain points of RTI Act, where different views are taken by the public authorities / CIC Officers, as well as giving vague replies under the Act. However, during the implementation of the act, some clarifications have been given by this Department which may be accessed at the RTI corner of the website www.persmin.gov.in "
FILE NO. CIC/WB/A/2008/01494 In this case, the request of Shri S. P. Goyal dated 15.2.08 was as follows:
"1) Please inform Sec. 4(i)(d) is applicable to all adjudicating officers.
2) Please inform which of the Adjudicating authorities are exempted under Sec. 4(i)(d).
3) Please inform Income Tax Appellate Tribunal comes under the category of adjudication of Assessment orders or what is their category as per RTI Act 2005."
The response of CPIO Shri D. C. Sharma of 29.2.08 was as follows :
"Point No. 1 to 3 : Sec. 4(1)(d) mandates that every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decisions to affected persons. However, the Central Information Commission in a decision pertaining to case of Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal inter-alia held that the Section 4(1)(d) does not apply to judicial proceedings conducted by a Court or a Tribunal as it refers to the administrative and quasi- judicial decisions of public authorities. The decision of the Central Information Commission is binding under Sec. 19(7) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Here again after an appeal dated 10.4.08, Appellate Authority Ms. Anuradha Chagti OSD allowed the appeal but ordered as follows:
"Under Section 19 of the RTI Act, the appeal is allowed.
i) Under Sec. 19(7) of the RTI Act, 2005 the decisions of the CIC are binding. No further information is available.
ii & iii) The subject matter of the query relates to the giving of a judgment. The decision of the CIC is binding.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly."
5The appeals were scheduled to be heard through videoconference on 21.1.10. The following are present:
APPELLANT at NIC Studio, Mumbai Shri S. P. Goyal RESPONDENTS at CIC Chambers, New Delhi Shri R. K. Girdhar, US-RTI Shri D.C. Sharma, Section Officer (SR) Because the issue had already been heard and decision announced in appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01492, the appellant Shri S. P. Goyal was agreeable that the hearing need not be repeated.
DECISION NOTICE All three appeals arise out of the dissatisfaction of a single order of this Commission. The impugned order is part of the decision of this Commission in appeal No.CIC/AT/C/2007/00282 - Shri S. P. Goyal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-XII & Anr. This reads as follows:
"8. While 'a' has been pre-determined and the complainant is being charged the same, 'b' is to be decided by the public authority. I find that the public authority has taken its decision, which the complainant was not able to impeach on any ground. The specific plea of the respondents for charging this cost to the complainant is that what the complainant has requested is certified copies of documents, which run into hundreds of pages. A responsible officer has to carefully tally, compare the documents with the originals and certify these only thereafter, and certify, lest he errs into providing wrong certification. The certifying officer has to suspend his other work to attend to this RTI-request of the complainant, and hence a charge of Rs.50/- per page as cost for certifying the hundreds of pages of information, which the appellant has asked for, is not unreasonable.
9. The Commission finds merit in the respondents' submission. The amount demanded from the complainant by the CPIO is reasonable considering the appellant's sizeable requirement of certified copies."6
By seeking an opinion from the DoPT regarding an order passed by this Commission, appellant Shri S. P. Goyal has in fact challenged the decision before the inappropriate authority since as he has already been informed by appellate authority Ms. Anuradha Chagti OSD and quoted by us above that "under Sec. 19(7) of the RTI Act, 2005 the decisions of the CIC are binding."
In the view of appellant Shri Goyal however, the above decision constitutes an error in law since it contravenes fee rules governing decisions made by the Central Information Commission. The appropriate method to seek redress is either by Writ before the High Court, a recourse available to him under the Constitution of India, or by seeking a review by the Commission itself, which although it has no general power of review, is like any judicial or quasi-judicial authority authorized to review its decision on grounds of error of law or facts.
In this matter appellant Shri S. P. Goyal may make a reference to the Decision of this Commission sitting in full bench on the application of sub sec. (3) of Section 7, which deals with "payment of any further fee representing the cost of providing information" which is dealt with in Complaint/Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/C/2007/00943 & CIC/MA/A/2008/01085 - Sh. Subodh Jain & Shri K. K. Kishore vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police (West District) and Institute of Company Secretaries, upon which a Decision was announced on 30.10.2009, accessible on the CIC website www.cic.gov.in, of that date . The present appeals, however, being without substance, are hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 21.1.2010 7 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 21.1.2010 8