Central Information Commission
Abhishek vs Department Of School Education And ... on 11 August, 2021
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/DSELI/A/2020/105827
Abhishek ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
M/o. HRD, Department Of School
Education and Literacy, RTI Cell,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001 ..... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09/08/2021
Date of Decision : 09/08/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18/07/2019
CPIO replied on : 01/08/2019
First appeal filed on : 23/10/2019
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28/01/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.07.2019 seeking the following information:
The CPIO informed the appellant on 01.08.2019 that:
".......contents of your letter dated 1st June, 2019 were shared with the Chief Vigilance Officer, Ed.CIL India Limited, Noida on 13th June, 2019 requesting for investigation in the matter and submitting a report to this Department. A reminder letter has also been issued on 31st July, 2019 to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Ed.CIL for expediting the report.
It is also informed that the matters related to TSG for all scheme in this Department operated at by Ed.CIL India Ltd are now being dealt with by CPIO, Shri Rajesh Samplay, Under Secretary (EE.1 Section). Therefore, you are requested to approach him for any further correspondence in this matter."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.10.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present. (Remained unavailable for audio conference) Respondent: Alok Jawahar, US & CPIO, Dept. of School Education & Literacy along with Sunil Mathur, Dy. GM & CPIO, EdCIL present through audio conference.2
Alok Jawahar, US & CPIO, Dept. of School Education & Literacy submitted that the available status of the action taken on the averred letter was informed to the Appellant.
Decision:
The current milieu of the COVID pandemic has necessitated the Commission to take some extraordinary steps in the disposal of cases to avoid further backlog and delays subverting the very purpose of RTI Act which includes inter alia hearing cases through audio conferencing. The instant case being one such instance where even so the Appellant could not be heard for want of contact details, the Commission is constrained to decide the case based on the strength of the material on record.
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of intervention in the matter as the reply provided by the CPIO on 01.08.2019 is as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Moreover, the grounds of the Second Appeal are premised on the allegation that Ed.CIL has not taken the desired action on the complaint of the Appellant, merits of which are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act and the superior Courts have made observations to this effect in a catena of judgments over the course of time.
In particular, 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. 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:3
"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."(Emphasis Supplied) 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) And, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Income Tax Officer vs. Gurpreet Kaur (W.P.[C] 2113/2019) dated 21.10.2019 has placed reliance on the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court in Namit Sharma's case to emphasize as under:
"8. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the powers of the Commission are confined to the powers as stated in the RTI Act...."
In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4