Central Information Commission
Sangeeta Dogra vs Central Zoo Authority, New Delhi on 27 July, 2022
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/CZAUR/A/2022/601706
Sangeeta Dogra ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Zoo Authority, RTI Cell,
B-1 wing, 6th Floor, Pt. Deendayal
Antyodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26/07/2022
Date of Decision : 26/07/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30/09/2021
CPIO replied on : 27/10/2021
First appeal filed on : 30/10/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 29/11/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09/01/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.09.2021 seeking the following information:
1. May kindly be please to furnish supportive documents in regard to Financial Transaction vide receipt 2507 dated 17.10.2018 amount 15,62,747/- was received from PFA by Central Zoo Authority.
2. Purpose or reason for this financial Transaction.
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 27.10.2021 stating as follows:-
1"Point No. 1 & 2:- The requested information, as available with this public authority, is provided at Annexure 1.
As the instant RTI Application does not contain any evidence/ material/ information/ or any other document to indicate that the information sought by the applicant concerns her life and liberty, therefore the RTI Application cannot be considered within the scope of Proviso to Section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.10.2021. FAA's order dated 29.11.2021 observed as under:-
"..............It is observed that Section 19 of the Act deals with "Appeal" and lays down a procedure that has to be followed by any person who is filing the First and Second Appeal. Therefore, the said section does not apply in the case of CPIO in the present appeal. Similarly, the ground of third-party information raised by the appellant lacks any merit.
9. However, considering the appeal of the Appellant, additional information is being provided (enclosed). The CPIO is also advised to ensure that the information as desired by the appellant and as available in this office is furnished in its entirety."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: R. S. Rawat, Finance Officer & CPIO along with Surya Gupta, Assistant present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant raised her arguments for filing of the instant Appeal through a written submission, extracts of which are enumerated in verbatim as under:
"...That the FAA has quoted File No: CIC/DOP&T/A/2018/160385 Brijesh Kumar Sharma Versus Department of Personnel and Training, which is misleading and rhetorical in nature. FAA is using the said citation in a misleading manner, as in the particular case, information sought by RTI applicant (Brijesh Sharma) was in regard to Vacant Posts in relation to Government Officials.2
c) In my RTI information relates to Private NGO People For Animals and Central Zoo Authority which is a statutory body under Ministry of Environment of Forest and Climate Change, any Government doesn't deal and exchange amount from private persons or Private NGO, unless it's a bribe or any funds corruption or misuse of Government fund or any fraudulent activity noticed. Since this amount was itself released by Central Zoo Authority to Private NGO.
d) In the Present RTI and Appeal both CPIO and FAA, deliberately and willfully refused to understand that both these queries and the RTI Application is concerned at large with Larger Public Interest, and this very well conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005.
e) Here both CPIO and FAA have cited incorrect provision to disclose the reason for accepting or receiving this amount from Private NGO and Private Person.
f) For the Deliberate and willfully inaction, CPIO and FAA may be given written warning and a Fee may be imposed on them."
The CPIO submitted that reply along with relevant available information has already been provided to the Appellant. Further, while rebutting the Appellant's contention he explained that there are no provisions in the respective Acts which bar receipt of financial grants from Private NGOs.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO as the same adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Moreover, the issue raised by the Appellant of alleged corruption scams and bribe through private NGOs, is not amenable under the RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant is advised to pursue her grievance through appropriate administrative mechanism.
In view of the above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 3 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4