Central Information Commission
Love Gogia vs National Commission For Protection Of ... on 11 February, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NCPCR/C/2020/679172
Love Gogia ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Commission for
Protection of Child Rights,
RTI Cell, 5th Floor,
Chanderlok Building, 36,
Janpath, New Delhi - 110001. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10/01/2022
Date of Decision : 11/02/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 11/03/2020
CPIO replied on : 18/06/2020
First appeal filed on : 14/06/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 06/07/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.03.2020 seeking the following information;1
" On dated 12.11.2018, I informed the police about the abuse of my child Aditya done by his maternal uncle Karan Dua. On dated 22.11.2018, full bench of Ld. CWC-IX New Delhi interacted with the child, recorded his statement and ordered / directed the police to take legal action. On dated 30.04.2019, F.I.R. u/s 75 of JJ Act was registered against the accused Karan Dua.
At present, matter is also being heard before Hon'ble Court of Ilaqa Magistrate at Faridabad.
However, in the mean time on dated 05.03.2020, NCPCR disposed of a grievance (not meant & addressed to NCPCR but was actually meant for delayed action on part of police) lodged on PG Portal (MINHA/E/2019/02433) by uploading following two letters of dated 03.03.2020:
i. One letter says -
"...a letter has been written to you to approach concerned lawful authority for redressal of your grievance as matter is related to matrimonial and custody right. The file has been closed from our end." ii. Another letter says -
"...The Commission has sent a letter to you bearing F. No.107134/2019- 2020/JJ dated 03.12.2019, wherein it was mentioned that the Commission has no jurisdiction in custody matters and same was closed in the Commission."
I understand that commission has no jurisdiction in custody matters, but please be informed that it was not the custody matter but the matter pertained to child abuse which the innocent child underwent in the hands of his Mama Karan Dua. In this regard, kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act 2005:
1. Copy of all the documents (including emails & notesheets etc.) on basis of which NCPCR disposed to above grievance on above lines (i.e. calling it matrimonial and custody matter).
2. Copy of all the documents on which above decision of NCPCR (and above documents being provided to point No. 1 above) relies upon.
3. Copy of the rules / law / provisions / etc. vide which a 3rd person (here, Mama) has been given liberty to infringe child's rights and thus s/he gets right to abuse the minor child if parents of the child are involved in any kind of dispute.
4. After receipt of information under this application, I intend to carry out an actual inspection of records (related to above information sought), if 2 need be and obtain certified photocopies of records identified by me during the inspection. I may be permitted such inspection."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 14.06.2020.
Subsequently, the CPIO replied to the complainant on 18.06.2020 stating as follows:-
"Please refer to your RTI application and to say that due to lock down, the requisite information could not be provided on time. Sorry for that. Since the attachment exceeds the limit prescribed in the portal, I am sending the attachment through mail. The point-wise information is provided as under:-
(i) & (ii):- Please see the attached file
(iii): This information is not available in NCPCR
(iv): You can visit the office on a mutually convenient date and time after paying the prescribed fees mentioned under the RTI rules.
Photocopies of any document can be provided to you on payment.
In regard to his first appeal, FAA's order dated 06.07.2020 stated as under :-
".............On perusal of the records on file, RTI application, reply furnished by CPIO and the RTI Appeal, it is seen that the requisite information sought by the appellant could not be provided by the CPIO within the prescribed time due to lock down. However, your RTI application was disposed of by the CPIO on 18 June, 2020 by giving an opportunity for inspection of the related documents under the provisions of RTI Act. Accordingly, you have visited the Commission on 06/07/2020."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through audio-conference. Respondent: G. Suresh, Assistant Director & CPIO present through audio- conference.3
The Complainant at the outset apprised the Commission that instant matter has been inadvertently registered as a Complaint as is evidenced from the cover page titled ' Complaint ', however it can be seen from the entire file that this matter has been filed by him as a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of RTI Act. He further expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply on the following grounds -
1. "On dated 09.04.2020, i.e. after 30 days of filing of my above mentioned RTI request, I received an email from Mr. G Suresh MWCD ( [email protected] ) saying "Sir As you know, the country is facing a great threat due to the spread of corona virus. Since the city is lockdown, our staff are not being able to access the files kept in office. So you are requested to wait for some more days so that we can provide requisite information under RTI.
xxxxxxxxxx"
2. When since CPIO's email dated 09.04.2020, about 67 days passed and during that mean time, Government had issued many guidelines regarding attending offices by Government officials, as per which public servants were supposed to attend offices as per duty roster or otherwise. But it was highly concerning that even after passage of 96 days from filing of my RTI request, CPIO failed to provide me the information sought, which, as per section 7(2) of the Act, amounted to deemed refusal of the information requested. So, I preferred first appeal dated 14.06.2020 before the Ld. FAA..
3. After filing of first appeal application, the CPIO woke up from its stupor and on the evening of 18.06.2020, he sent his response to my RTI request vide his email wherein he also expressed sorry for delay and offered me the inspection of records as per my RTI request.
Upon checking CPIO's response dated 18.06.2020, on the first moment I found that information provided is incomplete and immediately on the same day accepted the inspection offered to me and requested the CPIO by return email dated 18.06.2020:
xxxxxxxxx "As the first appeal (Reg. No. NCPCR/A/E/20/00013) in case of instant RTI application has already been filed, a copy of this email is being sent to Ld. First Appellate Authority for information please and also with a humble request to 4 please don't pass orders to my First Appeal Application till I actually inspect the records as I would like to file a rejoinder, if I'm not satisfied with the inspection of records offered by the CPIO."
4. As was destined, I didn't get any response either from the CPIO or the FAA.
5. On dated 22.06.2020, I sent reminder to both the CPIO and the FAA. This too went in vain, as I didn't get any response.
6. Getting no response from the public authority prompted me to file rejoinder to the Ld. FAA vide my email dated 03.07.2020 requesting - "...to direct the CPIO to allow me inspection of record and also to pass a stricture against the CPIO for his violation of transparency law and to warn him in writing to adhere to the time limit of the Act and follow the RTI Act in its letter and spirit. Or I will be constrained to file a complaint against him, interalia for his unprofessional attitude and to defy the Parliamentary Act, before the competent forum including Hon'ble Central Information Commission, New Delhi and I will also demand compensation for causing avoidable delay, harassment to the appellant by forcing him to undergo rigmarole of appeals."
7. Thereafter, the CPIO offered me inspection vide his email dated 04.07.2020 which inspection was fixed for dated 06.07.2020.
8. While accepting this inspection, I requested the CPIO to facilitate the inspection by providing the following clarification/information with respect to files and records purported to be shown to me:
a. Serial No./Index No. of pages b.Total No. of pages in each file/record.
c. File(s) creation date d. Last access date e. Date of the last leaf/page in each file/record f. Current custodians of these files and records.
I also informed the CPIO that during the inspection, I was intending to take notes, extracts or photographs of records, documents, objects that I am allowed to Inspect and wherever I find it expedient. [Ref. Section 2(f), 2(i) & 2(j) of the RTI Act 2005 & decisions of Hon'ble CIC in Case No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00144 dated 03.08.2006 and CIC/AD/A/09/00125 dated 23.02.2009].5
9. As CPIO didn't respond, I went for inspection of documents on dated 06.07.2020 whereat firstly I was shown only selected those papers which were sent as RTI response. Then upon my insistence for inspection of record as agreed, I was shown two files which were without any pagination and documents in the file were haphazardly arranged. Upon my insistence, on spot pagination was done with pencil and with half heartedness as if CPIO is doing some special favour to a citizen.
10. While inspection I found that the information given to me by the CPIO by his email dated 18.06.2020 was not only incomplete but also was not completely scanned, so I requested CPIO to allow me to get those documents scanned in my mobile phone myself and I would give the receipt for the same to the CPIO as this would be hygienic at the time of COVID19, but CPIO didn't allow me saying that he would provide me copy of the documents physically after official formalities. So, I gave him written letter for the same on the spot. As I was not given any receipt of my written letter, so I preferred an email to CPIO too.
11. However, immediately, in the meantime, after my above said inspection on dated 06.07.2020, without awaiting for whether CPIO has provided me complete information or not, without awaiting for my rejoinder in this regard, without taking cognizance of the gravity of matter, without following the letters of the RTI Act 2005, without following the rules and guidelines issued by the Government of India, the Ld. FAA very irresponsibly disposed of my first appeal application vide letter No. C-12011/367/2019/RTIAppeal/Admn dated 06.07.2020.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
12. Even after the said inspection, I kept on waiting for another nine days but didn't hear anything from the CPIO. Upon getting no response from the CPIO, I sent a final notice to the CPIO vide email dated 15.07.2020 (Copy enclosed. Page No. 16), to which CPIO responded on dated 17.07.2020 with a demand to deposit additional fee of Rs.64/- to get the information. I requested CPIO that this demand is legally untenable as he had crossed the 30 days time limit to provide me the information. I also cited orders of Hon'ble CIC in this regard, but CPIO responded on dated 19.07.2020 in negative......"
Per contra, the CPIO submitted that a reply along with an opportunity of inspection of relevant records has already been provided to the Appellant in 6 response to RTI Application which was duly availed by him. He further submitted that based on the inspection, a set of copies running into 13 pages information has been provided to the Appellant free of cost, however upon his request for additional relevant information of 32 pages; an RTI fees of Rs. 64/- has been demanded from the Appellant which he failed to pay till date.
The Appellant while rebutting the CPIO's contentions restricted his arguments to the plea that the CPIO may be directed to provide scanned copy of averred 32 pages information free of cost through email. In response to it, the CPIO at the behest of the Commission agreed to do the needful.
Decision The Commission at the outset considering the submission of the Complainant is of the considered view that the instant matter has been erroneously registered as a Complaint by the Central registry and in the interest of justice, decided to treat this it as a Second Appeal and pass the orders accordingly.
In doing so, the Commission upon a perusal of facts on records and after hearing submissions of both the parties observes that although the reply provided by the CPIO adequately suffices the vague information sought by the Complainant as per the provisions of RTI Act; however, considering the prayer of the Complainant during hearing, the CPIO is hereby directed to provide a copy of relevant information of averred 32 pages in response to the instant RTI Application after redacting the personal details and identifying particulars of third parties viz witnesses, investigating officers, etc. disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act. The severance of records may be carried out by the CPIO in consonance with Section 10 of RTI Act.
The aforesaid information shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Complainant through speed post and also via email within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) 7 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 8