Central Information Commission
Shri Amar Singh vs Election Commission Of India (Eci). on 21 December, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint Nos. CICWB/C/2009/000073, 127, 128, 285 dated 22.2.2009, 17.3.2009, 1.6.2009 &
17.3.2009 respectively and
Appeal No. CICWB/A/2008/01400 dated 24.2.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18 & 19
Complainant /Appellant - Shri Amar Singh
Respondent - Election Commission of India (ECI).
Decision announced: 21.12.2009
Facts:
These are four complaints and one appeal received from Shri Amar Singh former Headmaster of the Rajkiya Uchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan with regard to disclosure of information that he has sought from Election Commission of India.
File No. CIC/WB/C/2009/000073 In this case the information sought by appellant Shri Amar Singh through an application of 9.7.08 was as follows:
"Kindly arrange to provide me the information about action taken till date by the Election Commission of India, on the above letters under Sec. 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. I may be supplied copies of these. I enclose IP of Rs. 10/- towards fee."
To this he received a response from PIO Shri Virender Kumar, U.S. dated 11.8.08 in which he has been informed of the disposal of his letter of 11.6.08 received through the Sr. P.S. to Sh. Jaswant Singh, MP, as follows:
"Your letter dated the 11th June 2008, which was received in the Commission through the Senior Private Secretary to Shri Jaswant Singh, Leader of Opposition, Rajya Sabha was filed in the concerned file because it was found that you have mentioned the same issues which were already raised by you in your several earlier representations to the Commission and action on which has already been taken.' 1 Shri Amar Singh has then moved an appeal before the Appellate Authority and Secretary, Election Commission of India, pleading as follows:
"To present before Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Delhi and also to Leader of Opposition, Rajya Sabha."
This appeal does not elucidate the nature of his objection to the information provided. Nevertheless, through his letter of 24.9.08 Shri Shangara Ram, Principal Secretary and Appellate Authority has decided as follows:
"I have examined Office record and note on the basis of above grounds. For want of specific request, it is not possible to take any action on it. Even then if appellant makes any specific request, the same can be considered. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed."
Shri Amar Singh has then moved a complaint before us in which his prayer is as follows:
"For presenting before Supreme Court of India, New Delhi"
File No. CIC/WB/C/2009/000128 In this case the request of applicant Shri Amar Singh dated 10.6.08 is as below:
"On 11.8.2004 I had requested vide my letter to the Leader of Opposition, Rajya Sabha for providing me justice against my transfer letter issued in back date of 18.9.98 after issue of Model Code of Conduct on 26.9.98 by the Election Commission. This application is still under consideration in Election Commission of India. It is regretted that some politician is putting pressure and justice is being denied to me. Election Commission could have easily cancelled my transfer and provided me justice. I am being forced to work without pay till date. Due to mental torture, my family, brothers & sisters, mother and myself are suffering from several diseases. I have spent lakhs of rupees on treatment from All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Sawai Mansingh Hospital, Jaipur and other places. The treatment is still going on and due to continuous illness I am now suffering from Paralysis. Copy of complaint is attached alongwith IP of Rs. 10/-. Any action taken on my appeal bearing No. 364 dated 11.4.08 by Leader of Opposition or any other officer, may kindly be got provided to me."2
In this case Shri Amar Singh has moved an appeal on 24.7.08 before the Appellate Authority, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, as follows: :
"1. Please provide copy of letter No. 4/RTI/191/2008/1687 dated 4th June, 2008
2. Copy of letter at Dy. No. 757/Sr.PS/2008 dated 11th June, 2008 of Senior Pvt. Secretary.
3. Copy of letter dated 23.7.08 written by me to Secretary, Election Commission bearing Dy. No. 76 dated 21.7.07.
4. The copy of application submitted by me has been supplied which is bearing stamp of Principal, Govt. Model High Secondary School, Nagor Code No. 070091. From where it was stamped and why? I had presented two similar letters to the Commision. Case is imbued and influenced with revenge. Where did this stamp come from to Election Commission? Why complete 'Principal" is not printed, I cannot understand. It is stamped with red ink.
5. Copy of my letter No. 364 dated 23.7.2008.
In this connection if any further information is required then I can be contacted on Mob. No. 941364388. I am suffering from Paralysis and unable to appear personally and making representations from 10/98. "
Shri Amar Singh has then moved a complaint before us, praying as follows:
"For providing information and getting the case of my transfer vide Order No. (....illegible....)/45001/98 dated 18.9.98 and cruelty done against me, investigated by Central Bureau of Investigation and getting the case of political pressure on Election Commission of India, New Delhi investigated through Competent Agency."
File No. CIC/WB/C/2009/000285 In this case Shri Amar Singh's application before the CPIO Lok Sabha Secretariat is as follows:
"I am sending this letter through Dak and request you to kindly provide me the information on the types of action taken on my letter either from Leader of Opposition, Rajya Sabha or from any other officer of his office. I am sending the necessary fee by way of IPO and if additional fee is to be paid towards supply of copy @ Rs.2/-, I am ready to pay the same."3
Shri Amar Singh moved an appeal before the Appellate Authority Lok Sabha Secretariat on 13.6.08 with the following plea:
"To present before Hon'ble Election Commission of India, New Delhi and Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur."
Shri Amar Singh has then moved a complaint before us on 18.7.08 praying as follows:
"To present as documentary evidence before Hon'ble Election Commission of India, New Delhi and Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur."
In this case there was also a complaint before us on the basis of an application made to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Nabha, Rajasthan seeking information whether the C-3 Branch of the Bank does or does not issue or accept Bank Draft. This application went in appeal before the Rajasthan State Information Commission which transferred that to us and upon which the decision of Registrar and First Appellate Authority, Central Information Commission of 29.7.09 was as follows:
"The appellant, however, appeared today and submitted that his main grievance relates to the three appeal petitions which he has filed against the Election Commission of India and would like to urge the Commission to hear them expeditiously as it involves a matter concerning his life.
He has explained that his grievances are extraneous, insofar as this appeal petition is concerned. He was advised to file a RTI before the concerned CPIO of State Bank if the reply of Bikaner and Jaipur and in case he does not receive a reply or if the reply furnished is unsatisfactory, he should approach the First Appellate Authority of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. In case, the response from the State bank of Bikaner and Jaipur is not received, he can also consider approaching this Commission under section 18 or section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, if necessary.
In view of the above observations, the appeal petition is disposed of.
The appellant may prefer an appeal under section 19 (3) before the Central Information Commission against this order, if he so desires."4
This order has not been challenged before us.
File No. CIC/WB/C/2009/000127 In this case the request of Shri Amar Singh was moved on 2.8.08. He has then moved an appeal before the Secretary, Election Commission of India on 26.8.08 followed by a second complaint before us on 9.10.08 with the following prayer:
"Request through Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner for getting the matter investigated by CBI , by bringing to his notice, and declaring the names of political persons involved, for issuing transfer orders, on the basis of Code of Conduct, dated 26.9.98 (back dated 18.9.98)."
File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01400 In this case Shri Amar Singh, through an application of 30.4.08 has sought the following information from the Dy. Secretary, Lok Sabha Secretariat:
"1. Why my representations forwarded from 10/98 to 1.2.2003 are not available in the Commission's Office? Under whose instructions, these have been misplaced?
2. How the rubber stamp of Principal, Rajkiya Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nagaur has been affixed on both pages of my application addressed to Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India, New Delhi which is registered in their Dy. No. 76 dated 21.7.07? Is there any provision of having rubber stamps of all Schools in the Commission's Office? Whether my case will be kept pending or it will be investigated by some competent officer and I will be provided justice. I beg pardon for presenting this appeal, on considering it a fit case for appeal. God help me."
To this, Shri Amar Singh received a response of 4.6.08 from CPIO Shri J. K. Rao, Under Secretary who had received the application on 5.5.08, as follows:
"With regard to your application, it is informed that required action on your application has been taken by Election Commission and you can collect the certified copies of documents on payment of Rs. 26/- @ Rs. 2/- per page as per sec. 4 of RTI Act (Payment of fee), 2005. Payment can be made either in cash or through Bank Draft/Banker's cheque/IPO payable to Under Secretary or Accounts 5 Officer, Election Commission of India. In case payment is made by Indian Postal Order, it should be payable at "Election Sadan, New Delhi"
Shri Amar Singh has moved an appeal against this information on 16.5.08 i.e. before receiving the response. He has also not specified the nature of his grievance. He has then moved an appeal before us with the following prayer:
"I have been informed by Election Commission that my application dated 1.2.2003 is available with them, whereas I am making complaints since 10/98 through Registered post. It is requested that I may be provided information at seriatim."
In response to our complaint / appeal notice, we have received a detailed response from CPIO Shri A. N. Das, Under Secretary, Election Commission of India, in which he has submitted as below, with relevant annexure:
"1. Shri Amar Singh had made an application dated 2.8.2008) in connection with his representations dated 30.4.2008 and 16.5.2008 and the CPIOs replied to the said application, vide his letter No. 4/RTI/191/2008, dated 4.6.2008 and letter No. 4/RTI/204/2007/JS-II dated 19.6.2008 respectively. The complainant later submitted a letter dated 2.8.2008. In that letter he had not sought any information. Since he had made certain complaints/ allegation against the CPIO's reply in the letter dated 2.8.2008, the communication was treated as an appeal and accordingly disposed of vide the FAA's decision dated 29.8.2008
2. The complainant had made an application dated 24.5.2007, which had been replied to vide the CPIO's reply dated 13.6.2007 as under:-
Information Information given sought Copy of Your complaint dated 1.2.2003 was forwarded to last decision CEO, Rajasthan vide Commission's letter No. taken by the 61/RJ/2002/WS-I dated 25th February, 2003 (I page) Commission for necessary action. Your letter dated 24.12.2003 in any case. was also forwarded to CEO, Rajasthan vide Commission's letter No. 61/RJ/2002-2003 dated 2.1.2004 (1 page) for expedition the case.
In response to above mentioned Commission's letter, the CEO, Rajasthan sent his report on the matter vide his D. O. Letter No. F.4 (2) (5)/ First/ 6 Elect/ 6243 dated 17th August, 2004 (2 pages). As per the report disciplinary action had been taken against you under CCA rule, 1961.
In view of CEO report the Commission dropped further action on your complaint in the matter. No order/ communication were formally issued from the Commission.
It was also reported that you made an appeal in the High Court the Order of the Directorate of Educati8on, under Rule 23 of CCA, rule which is sub-judice.
3. Further, the complainant had, vide his application dated 21.6.2007 referring the above reply, sought the following documents:-
(i) Copy of the Commission's letter No. 61/RJ/2002/WS-I dated 25.2.2009 addressed to CEO, Rajasthan.
(ii) Copy of the Commission's letter No. 61/RJ/2002-03, dated 2.1.2004 addressed to the CEO, Rajasthan.
(iii) Copy of the CEO Rajasthan's letter F.4 (2) (5) first/elect/6243 dated 17th August, 2004.
The requisite documents had been sent to the appellant vide the CPIO's letter dated 27.6.2008.
4. The complainant had once again approached the CPIO vide his application dated 27.9.2007 and sought all the relevant documents related to his case. The complainant was asked, vide the CPIO's letter dated 31.10.2007, to send the document charges. The appellant had moved his 1st appeal dated 27.10.2007 before the FAA, in which he had not mentioned any allegation against the CPIO. There was no specific ground urged in the appeal and since in the meantime, the complainant had sent the document charges, communication dated 27.10.2007 was not considered as appeal and the documents had been provided to vide the CPIO's letter dated 28.11.2007. The appellant had once again moved his 1stappeal dated 16.5.2008, in which he had alleged that certain letters were missed in the Commission's Secretariat and he also expressed some doubts regarding a stamp put up on a document provided to him. The appeal had been disposed of vide the FAA's letter dated 19.6.2008
5. The complainant had once again approached the Commission vide his letter dated 2.8.2008. Although the said letter was 7 not addressed to the FAA, but from the contents of the same it had been considered as appeal and accordingly, replied to vide the FAA's order dated 29.8.2008. In that Order, all the facts related to the appellant's transfer case had been considered from beginning and on the facts and circumstances, the appellant had been informed that the CPIO and the FAA in their above said letters/ orders had already supplied all the information/ document and clarified all the doubts expressed by him. The complainant had also been intimated that no appeal could be filed before the FAA against his own decision. In this respect, the appellant had once again filed another appeal dated 25.8.2008 in which he had requested the FAAS to make CBI enquiry in his transfer case. The appeal had been disposed of vide the FAA's decision dated 25.9.2008."
The four complaints and one appeal were heard on 30.11.2009. The following are present:
Respondents Shri S. R. Kar, Under Secretary Shri A. N. Das, Under Secretary Shri A. K. Bhatnagar, S.O. When contacted on the telephone, appellant Shri Amar Singh of Jhunjhunu who was not present at the NIC Studio, Jhunjhunu submitted that he had retired from his teacher's position and has not received the hearing notice. However, he wished to be heard and sought an adjournment. Respondents have no objection. The hearing was, therefore, adjourned to 21st December, 2009 at 4.00 p.m. Accordingly the mater was again heard on 21.12.09, when the following are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Jhunjhunu Shri Amar Singh Respondents at CIC chambers, New Delhi.
Shri Shangara Ram, Principal Secretary Shri Varinder Kumar, U.S. Shri S. R. Kar, U.S. Shri A. K. Bhatnagar, S.O. DECISION NOTICE 8 In light of the response received from ECI, a copy of which had also been endorsed to appellant Shri Amar Singh, appellant Shri Amar Singh submitted that he had sought certain information in his letter of 27.9.07 which he had received but which clearly showed that injustice had been done to him. When asked specifically what information he sought, Shri Amar Singh alleged that clearly the ECI had taken the wrong action on his application, as a result of which he had to suffer an unwarranted transfer and deserved compensation. He appealed, however, that he did not have resources and cannot go to the Court and, therefore, had to approach the Central Information Commission.
We find that the information sought by appellant Shri Amar Singh for all five cases had in fact been provided. This also stands acknowledged by him in the hearing. As may be seen from the above, this information has been repeatedly sought in different forms which could make it appear that in some cases the information sought has not been provided. This issue has been clarified by respondents in contending that the information having been provided in one case was not provided in another.
Such a means of seeking information can indeed be confusing and appellant Shri Amar Singh is advised that this is not the best way of making use of the provisions of the RTI Act. On the other hand, a response from CPIO is expected to every application received, provided that it is accompanied with the necessary fee. Nevertheless, even by his own admission, all the information as is held by the Election Commission of India on the issues that he has raised has in fact been provided to appellant Shri Amar Singh. There is no provision in this law for redress of grievance and, therefore, a request for action on his transfer orders is outside the pale of this Information Commission's jurisdiction. For this purpose, appellant / complainant Shri Amar Singh is free to petition Chief Election Commissioner himself or the appropriate Court of law, although now that he stands retired, any relief provided might only be notional. The appeal and complaints before us are, therefore, unsustainable and are hereby dismissed.9
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 21.12.2009 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 21.12.2009 10