Central Information Commission
Shaikh Shafi Ahmed vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 15 May, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/ESICO/A/2022/113838
Shaikh Shafi Ahmed ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE,
KARNATAKA, RTI CELL, NO. 10,
BINNYFIELDS, TANK BUND ROAD,
(NEAR BINNYMILL, NEXT OT ETA
MALL), BINNYPET,
BENGALURU-560023, KARNATAKA. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04/05/2023
Date of Decision : 04/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19/11/2020
CPIO replied on : 24/11/2020 & 29/12/2020
First appeal filed on : 04/02/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 03/03/2021
Second Appeal dated : 27/09/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.11.2020 seeking the following information:1
"Subject: - ESI hospital situated at RT Nagar, Bangalore -- 32. Beside the hospital there is ESI quarter building. The building is vacant, and the residents of the area are using the building compound to dump the garbage. The ESI authority is not taking proper care of the building, due to such mismanagement the structure of the building is being damaged.
In this connection furnish the following information along with relevant certified document, paper, etc.: -
a) Provide the purpose of the building i.e., use of the building.
b) Provide reasons recorded on record for the establishment of the ESI quarter in RT Nagar, Bangalore.
c) Provide sanction plan along with connected enclosures.
d) Provide total estimate incurred towards construction of the said building.
e) Provide details of contractor, agreement, and payment details.
f) Provide reasons recorded on record for the building being vacant."
The CPIO, ESIC, Bengaluru forwarded the RTI Application to the CPIO, Regional Office, ESI Corporation, Bengaluru on 24.11.2020 to furnish the information directly to the appellant.
Subsequently, the CPIO, Regional Office, ESI Corporation, Bengaluru furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 29.12.2020 stating as under:
"Point No. 1 and 2:
Information pertains to Directorate of ESI Medical Service, Rajajinagar, Bangalore.
Point No. 3:
The available details as per the office record is in the attached enclosure(A) Point No. 4:
Rs 16.57 lakhs for ESI Dispensary and Staff Quarters at R.T Nagar was mentioned as per book value of records.
Point No. 5:
The details of contractor as per the records supplied by KPWD are enclosed in the enclosure(B) Point No. 6:2
Information pertains to Directorate of ESI Medical Service, Rajajinagar, Bangalore."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.02.2021. FAA's order, dated 03.03.2021, held as under:
"Section 7 of the RTI Act, thus clearly specifies the provisions in respect of processing or disposal of a request to provide information and the time limits for providing the information by the public authority. Under Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005 information must be provided to the citizens within 30 days of receipt of the application by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO). Transfer of application to other public authority under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 within 5 days.
In this case, appellant requested to provide the details related to usage of building, recorded reasons to establish ESI quarters at RT Nagar, Bangalore and recorded reasons for building being vacant. This information pertains to the Public Information Officer, Directorate of ESI Medical services, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The CPIO received the information from concerned Central Assistant Public Information Officers (CAPI0s) and a reply sent to the applicant. A copy of the reply endorsed to the Public Information Officer, Directorate of ESI Medical services, Rajajinagar, Bangalore application (Tracking consignment number: EK059723159EK) through speed post on 08-01-2021.
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the records, it is observed that the RTI application was NOT transferred by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) within the stipulated 5 days' timeframe from the date of receiving the instant RTI Application. The First Appellate Authority cautions the CPIO to strictly adhere to the mandated timeframe as specified in the RTI Act, 2005. There is no malafide or deliberate intention apparent on the CPIO's part for reasons mentioned above."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.3
Respondent: Represented by G Singh, Deputy Director present through video- conference The Rep. of CPIO invited attention of the bench towards their written submission dated 01.05.2023 relevant extracts of which are reproduced below in verbatim -
1. "...An application under RTI Act, 2005 No. NIL dated: 19-11-2020 forwarded to this office by Sub Regional Office, ESIC Peenya filed by Sh. Shaikh Shari Ahmed through postal on 24-11-2020 with a request to furnish the Information to the applicant. The CPIO, Regional Office, ESIC Karnataka had furnished the available information to the applicant vide letter No.53/E/11/12/2020/RTI/Vol-IV dated:29-12-2020 through Postal. The information sought In RTI Application in respect of point No.1, 2 and 6 was related to The Directorate of Medical Services (ESIS), Government of Karnataka, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, Hence, the RTI application was transferred to The Directorate of Medical Services (ESIS), Government of Karnataka, Rajajinagar, Bangalore through Post on 08-01-2021 with a request to furnish the information directly to the applicant as the information sought by the applicant falls under jurisdiction of the Office of Directorate of Medical Services, Government Of Karnataka, Bangalore.
2. The First Appeal under RTI Act, 2005 No. Nil dated: 04-02-2021 received by this office on 09-02-2021 filed by Shri. Shaikh Shafi Ahmed through postal against the reply submitted by the CPIO, stating that " the respondent has not provided the information on query no. 1,2 and 6 and the request was not transferred to the concerned authority u/s 6(3) of RTI Act". The First Appellate Authority, Regional Office, ESIC Karnataka had furnished the reply saying that" The CPIO, Regional Office, Karnataka had furnished the available information in respect of point nos. 3, 4 and 5 vide letter No.53/E/11/12/2020/RTI/Vol-IV dated:29-12-2020 to the applicant through post. However, The information sought in respect of point nos. 1, 2 and 6 pertains to the Office of Directorate of ESI Medical Services, Government of Karnataka, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. Hence, a copy of RTI application was transferred to PIO, Directorate of ESI Medical Services, Government of Karnataka, Rajajinagar, Bangalore vide letter No. 53.Z.22.1.16.RTI. Constn dated- 03-12-2020 with a request to furnish the information directly to the applicant. (Postal consignment Tracking number: EK059723156EK).4
3. The Information sought in CIC application and the reply of this office Is as follows:
I) In this case, appellant requested to provide the details related to usage of building, recorded reasons to establish ESI quarters at RT Nagar, Bangalore and recorded reasons for building being vacant. This information sought pertains to the Public Information Officer, Directorate of ESI Medical services, Government of Karnataka, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. Hence, a copy of RTI application was forwarded to The PIO, Directorate of ESI Medical Services, Government of Karnataka, Rajajinagar on 03-12-2020 with a request to furnish the information directly to the applicant.
II) The First Appeal under RTI Act,2005 No. Nil dated: 04-02-2021 received by this office on 09-02-2021 from Shaikh Shaft Ahmed through post against the reply submitted by the CPIO. The First Appellate Authority, Regional Office: Karnataka had furnished the reply to the Appellant vide letter No.53/E/11/12/25/2019/RTI/Vol-15(A) dated: 03-03-2021 through post within the prescribed time limit.
III) The FAA/RD ESIC is not an Appellant Authority in respect of CPIOs in State Government.
IV) However, this office has again requested to The PIO, Directorate of ESI Medical Services, Government of Kamataka, Rajajinagar to furnish the information to the applicant directly vide letter No.53/E/11/14/2/2022/CIC dated: 27-04-2023 by citing the appeal pending before the Hon'ble Information Commission. The response from their side is still awaited though this office has not any jurisdiction over the department of State Government of Karnataka..."
In response to above mentioned submissions, the Appellant restricted his arguments to the fact that relevant information furnished by the CPIO was uncertified. In response to which, the CPIO at the behest of the Commission agreed to resend certified copies of relevant information as furnished to the Appellant earlier.
5Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that that the core issue raised in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se as much as it is about redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding misuse of ESI quarter building situated at RT Nagar, Bengaluru -- 32 and seeking clarifications from the CPIO in this regard.
From the standpoint of RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO given earlier and now are in spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
For better understating of the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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." (Emphasis Supplied) As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:6
"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 fora. 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."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was 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."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...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...." (Emphasis Supplied) However, by taking an empathetic view in the matter and in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed firstly to share a copy of his latest written submission free of cost with the Appellant and also provide certified copies of relevant documents as furnished to the Appellant earlier, free of cost. The said direction should be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect should be sent to the Commission by the CPIO.7
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8