Central Information Commission
Pancham Ram vs Barc Facilities, Kalpakkam on 4 May, 2020
के न्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील सख्ं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/BARKP/A/2018/630939-BJ
Mr. Pancham Ram
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Chief Administrative Officer
Department Of Atomic Energy
Nuclear Recycle Board, BARC Facilities
Kalpakkam, Distt.-Kanchipuram
Tamilnadu - 603102
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.05.2020
Date of Decision : 04.05.2020
Date of RTI application 13.05.2018
CPIO's response 19.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 02.07.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 03.08.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the percentage marks of the employees (whose names were mentioned in the RTI application) of BARC facilities, Kalpakkam who had passed the additional higher qualification i.e. AMIE/AMIIChE/AIC/BE/B Tech/ M Sc, in a prescribed format, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 19.06.2018 denied disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 03.08.2018 stated that the information sought did not involve any public interest or activity as they were of personal in nature, disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individuals. The FAA had also stated that objections have been received from the third parties for disclosure of their personal information and therefore, upheld the reply given by the PIO, BARC facilities.Page 1 of 5
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. N. L. Meena, Appellant's representative through TC; Respondent: Smt. Sheela Mohan, Chief Administrative Officer through TC;
The Appellant's representative reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought in respect of certain categories of employees who were granted promotion with less than 60% marks between 2003 and 2008 had not been provided. It was apprehended that certain relaxations were made to benefit a few individuals. Therefore, the detailed information was desired to contest the matter at an appropriate forum. On a query from the Commission that the RTI application was made only in 2018, it was informed that they learnt about the alleged discrepancy only in 2017 and therefore filed an RTI application for a suitable reply. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the response of the CPIO / FAA as also its written submission. Furthermore, it was explained that one time relaxation was made in 2010 and it was available on its website. The Appellant's representative confirmed knowledge of the said relaxation but emphasized that he desired specific information in respect of the employees who were granted the benefit.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 27th April, 2020 wherein it was submitted that the Appellant vide his application dated 13.05.2018 had sought information from CPIO, BARCF (K) pertaining to percentage of marks scored by some of the employees of BARCF (K) and also the effective date of their track change from Scientific Assistant Grade to Scientific Officer Grade. The CPIO, BARCF (K) vide communication dated 19.06.2018 denied disclosure of information u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the information viz. the percentage of marks scored and the date of track change from Scientific Assistant to Scientific Officer of some of the employees was a third party information and the disclosure of the same did not serve larger public interest. The Appeal dated 02.07.2018 preferred by the Appellant to the FAA in BARCF (K) i.e. Facility Director, BARCF (K) was disposed off by the Appellate Authority vide communication dated 03.08.2018 wherein, the decision of the CPIO, BARCF (K) was confirmed, after taking into consideration the objections raised by the third parties for disclosure of percentage of marks scored by them (email communications from the third parties enclosed). In addition to the above, it was submitted that the First Appeal dated
02.07.2018 of the Appellant was preferred in his capacity as President of DAE SC ST Employees Association, Rawatbhata which was a legal entity. However, the information under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 can be sought by persons in their individual capacity as citizen only. In the wake of the prevalent lockdown situation, due to the spread of COVID - 19, the CPIO hereby consent to consider their written submissions for arriving at a decision.
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."Page 2 of 5
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:
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 observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), Page 3 of 5 MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
Page 4 of 5The Commission also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim in the matter of Sancha Bahadur Subba vs. State of Sikkim W.P. (C) 31/2017 dated 30.04.2018 had held as under:
"30. What concludes therefore from the gamut of discussions herein above is that in a given case information pertaining to assets and liabilities can be disclosed with the rider that there must be larger public interest involved justifying such disclosure. As can be culled out from the averments and submissions, the Petitioner herein suspects that the Respondent No. 5 is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, however mere suspicion without any prima facie material to substantiate it does not justify the disclosure of such information of the Respondent No. 5 as rests with the concerned government authority. This situation indeed appears to be a fishing expedition embarked upon by the Petitioner without any bona fide public interest. In these circumstances, it obtains that disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and falls under the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. However, an updated response could be sent 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 or through email, as agreed. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission) (Bimal Julka) (बिमल 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] निनांक / Date: 04.05.2020 Page 5 of 5