Central Information Commission
Jhuma Mondal vs Damodar Valley Corporation on 7 July, 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/DVCOR/A/2022/657629
Jhuma Mondal ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Damodar Valley Corporation,
RTI Cell, DVC Tower: VIP Tower
Kolkata-700054, W.B. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/07/2023
Date of Decision : 06/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22/07/2022
CPIO replied on : 19/08/2022
First appeal filed on : 30/08/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 22/09/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29/10/2022
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.07.2022 seeking the following information:
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 19.08.2022 stating as under:
Information sought under point no. 3 may be found in the footnotes of the DVC service Regulation available under DVC website-> about us-> DVC Act (https://www.dvc.gov.in/dvcwebsite_new1/dvc-act/) Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.08.2022. FAA's order dated 22.09.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.2
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
"...Reply is partial / incomplete and misleading.
In my earlier RTI appeal dated 22-07-2022 vide registration no. DVCOR/R/E/22/00120, against query sl. no. 3, I have requested to provide the certified copy of Gazette notification against all the amendments which are made in the Service Regulations of Damodar Valley Corporation in accordance with DVC's Service Regulation bearing no. 108B, para 4. In reply CPIO mentioned that all the amendments are listed in the footnotes of the DVC Service Regulation and corresponding Gazette notification may be found at https://egazette.nic.in/ .
(Page No. 18 of enclosed Reply received from the CPIO with enclosures).
In spite of my repeated search in the above-mentioned website, I am unable to locate the said Gazette notifications corresponding to the amendments of DVC Service Regulation as mentioned in the footnotes of the DVC Service Regulation.
Against my RTI First appeal, order issued by First Appellate Authority vide no. AA-Decision (Jhuma Mondal)/2022/29/347 dated 21-09-2022 and thereby denying to disclose the Gazette notifications corresponding to the amendments which are made in the Service Regulations of DVC.
I believe that the information sought at Sl. No. 5 above are required to be proactively disclosed under Sections 4(1)(b), 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act. As I am unable to locate the said information on the relevant official website as mentioned in reply of CPIO against my query sl. no.3 and subsequent denial of First Appellate Authority, I am constrained to file this RTI application.
In this context, I would like to refer the following decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the DoP&T OM which gave me immense moral support to file this appeal before the Hon'ble Commission in anticipation to issuance of favorable directions to the CPIO towards discloser of information as sought in Sl. No. 5 above.3
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007) (Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities"
whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
and in the OM No.4/9/2008-IR dated 24.06.2008 issued by the DoP&T on the Subject "Courteous behavior with the persons seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005" wherein it was stated as under:
"The undersigned is directed to say that the responsibility of a public authority and its public information officers (PIO) is not confined to furnish information but also to provide necessary help to the information seeker, wherever necessary."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by P Mondal present through video-conference. Respondent: Sangita Sil, DGM & CPIO along with Koushik Roy, Manager present through video-conference.
The Rep. of Appellant reiterated the contents of instant Appeal as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs and further expressed his dissatisfaction that none of the Gazette notification against all the amendments which are made in the Service Regulations of Damodar Valley Corporation in accordance with DVC's Service Regulation bearing no. 108B, para 4 are available on the weblinks https://egazette.nic.in/ as referred by the CPIO.4
The CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submissions dated 04.07.2023 wherein she inter alia stated as under -
"....5. In this regard, it is to be mentioned that The Gazette of India is published by Director of Printing, Department of Publication, Govt. of India. As per information available, there is no establishment in DVC wherein certified copies of all The Gazette of India are maintained in files. Moreover, DVC is a 76 year old organization. DVC Act & Service Regulations are available in DVC website https://www.dvc.gov.in/cros-web/details-pages/15 . It is known that The Gazette of India is uploaded in the website https://egazette.gov.in .Accordingly, it has been informed to the applicant in the reply under sl. No. 3.
6. In this connection, CPIO, DVC does not have any authority to generate information for extending information to the applicant/appellant. The information has been extended/uploaded as expeditiously as possible based on the information furnished by the deemed CPIO which was full and final. All out effort has been made from CPIO's end in letter and true spirit to dispose of the application..."
Decision:
The Commission upon scrutinizing the contents of RTI Application and after going through the submissions of both the parties finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to information sought by the Appellant as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon; as the queries raised by the Appellant concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act. The contents of the RTI Application itself suggests that the Appellant has sought for the clarifications/inferences to be drawn by the CPIO.
For better understanding of the mandate of the 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. In this regard, the Appellant's 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:5
"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) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....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...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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;6
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied.
Nonetheless, the Respondent should ensure that their Website contains all the requisite notifications / circulars / orders regarding Service regulations of DVC etc. ADVISORY However, it will be in the best interest of the Respondent Public Authority to strengthen and update regularly the contents on their website wherein a brief outline pertaining to the issues flagged by the Appellant regarding gazette notifications and amendments made in this regard by issuing FAQs through clarifications/ orders/circulars, etc. can be placed in the public domain in keeping with the letter and spirit of suo motu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed merely seeking clarifications and not any specific record.
In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
Lastly, in the spirit of RTI Act, the CPIO is further directed to share a copy of his latest written submission free of cost with the Appellant through email, immediately upon receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 7 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8