Central Information Commission
Dwarika Nath Mukherjee vs Ministry Of Micro, Small And Medium ... on 2 May, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Fl oor, B Wing, August Kranti B hawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2015/002261/MP
Appellant : Shri Dwarika Nath Mukherjee, Kolkata
Public Authority : National Small Industries Corporation Ltd., New Delhi
Date of Hearing : April 26, 2017
Date of Decision : April 28, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Shri Dwarika Nath Mukherjee and Shri Surjit Sawant
(Advocate) - through VC
Respondent : Shri Manoj Lal, GM(SG) & CPIO, Shri Sanjeevan
Saraswat, APIO and Shri A.K. Aggarwal, Consultant - at
CIC
RTI application : 15.05.2015(IPO deposited on 08.06.2015)
CPIO's reply : 03.07.2015
First appeal : 12.07.2015
FAA's Order : 11.08.2015
Second appeal : 16.11.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Dwarika Nath Mukherjee, the appellant, sought copy of steps taken alongwith note sheet and all communications relating to follow up on communication dated 06.06.2000 addressed to D/o Public Enterprises and copy of all communications and note sheets related to circular dated 31.03.2015 issued by NSICL related to pension scheme for IDA pattern employees; basis for introduction of NSICL employees superannuation pension scheme and whether the NSICL was authorized to take decision unilaterally without consulting/approval of the M/o MSME in the matter of superannuation pension scheme.
2. The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the FAA. The FAA upheld the CPIO's reply. Aggrieved, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that required information had not been provided by the CPIO.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant's representative stated that in response to his RTI application he received a reply dated 03.07.2015. With respect to point 1 it had been stated that no such document was available, which was not at all acceptable as it's not possible that there would be no information/document available on the steps taken and noting in the matter and the information on point 2 was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. He added that the information could not be denied by saying that it was meant for eligible employees only and section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act had been incorrectly relied upon. Moreover as per the proviso to section 8(1)(j) the information that cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature, cannot be denied to the appellant. Basis for introduction of NSICL employees superannuation pension scheme sought under point 3 was denied stating that the same was not covered within the definition of information under the RTI Act, 2005. He stated that the RTI Act, 2005 was enacted to bring about the transparency and accountability in the functioning of the public authority but the respondent had not followed this principle of maintaining transparency and accountability.
4. The respondent stated that the appellant under point 1 had sought copy of follow up action taken on the communication dated 06.06.2000 and no such document of action taken/steps taken was available on record. The said communication was addressed to Dept. of Public Enterprises and neither any action had been taken on the letter nor any note sheet relating to the same was available on record. The CPIO stated that the appellant is not an employee of NSICL and the information sought on point 2 i.e. copy of all communications and note sheets related to circular dated 31.03.2015 issued by NSICL related to pension scheme for IDA pattern employees was denied to him u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the information was related to the beneficiaries of pension scheme and he was not the beneficiary. Further the response to point 4 that the NSICL employee's superannuation pension scheme was duly approved by the NSIC Board of Directors and as per the DPE's OM dated 26.11.2008 and 02.04.2009 also covers point 3 as no separate basis/reason was available on record.
5. The Commission observes that the information available on record had been provided to the appellant. With respect to point 2 the stand taken by the respondent has been upheld and regarding the appellant's contention that 'the information which cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to him', the issue has been elaborately clarified by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 30/11/2009 in the matter of Union Of India Thr. Director vs Central Information Commission & ors. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 8396/2009 holding as under:
"43......................The proviso in the present cases is a guiding factor and not a substantive provision which overrides Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It does not undo or rewrite Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and does not itself create any new right. The purpose is only to clarify that while deciding the question of larger public interest i.e., the question of balance between „public interest in form of right to privacy‟ and „public interest in access to information‟ is to be balanced."
However, with respect to point 1 the CPIO is directed to submit an affidavit to the Commission mentioning that no such document/record of steps taken on communication dated 06.06.2000 is available on record within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
Appellant Shri Dwarika Nath Mukherjee R/o 35/A/1, Bindhya Basimi Jala Road, Ariadaha, Flat No. 9, Kolkata-700057 West Bengal The Central Public Information Officer National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. NSIC Bhawan, Okhla Industrial Estate New Delhi-110020 The First Appellate Authority National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. NSIC Bhawan, Okhla Industrial Estate New Delhi-110020