Central Information Commission
Sonali G Badhe vs Department Of Revenue on 26 September, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DOREV/C/2021/102286+
CIC/DOREV/C/2021/112998+
CIC/DOREV/C/2021/112999
Sonali G Badhe ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
Enforcement Directorate,
CGO Complex, 3rd MSD Building,
6th Floor, DF Block, Salt Lake,
Kolkata-700064
2. CPIO,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi-110001 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 19/09/2022
Date of Decision : 19/09/2022
Note: The above referred Complaint(s) have been clubbed for decision as these
are based on similar RTI Applications.
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application(s) filed on : 20/11/2020 & 28/01/2021
CPIO replied on : 21/12/2020; 24/02/2020; 01/03/2021
First appeal(s) filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority(s) : Not on record
order
1
2nd Appeal/Complaint(s) : 08/01/2021 & 16/03/2021
CIC/DOREV/C/2021/102286
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.11.2020 seeking information regarding the 'representation filed before the Revenue Secretary for necessary orders from 10.12.2018 till 11.11.2020 including xx affidavit report' as under:
"I have submitted the representation for taking necessary action before the Revenue Secretary.
For withdrawal of facilities and work after giving opinion in the cases of National lmportance by Sh. Yogesh Gupta, Special Director, Kolkata.
Filing of false affidavit by the Directorate Of Enforcement with derogatory and scandalous allegations outrageously You are requested to provide information and record pertaining to action taken, reasoned order passed, if any. l am ready to pay the required fees for the documents."
The CPIO transferred the RTI application on 21.12.2020 to the CPIO/Enforcement Directorate under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for providing information directly to the Complainant.
Subsequently, CPIO/Enforcement Directorate furnished a reply to the complainant on 24.02.2020 stating that information sought cannot be furnished as per the section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a complaint to the Commission.
CIC/DOREV/C/2021/112998 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.01.2021 seeking the following information "On 07.12.2018 complainant has submitted legal opinion in the cases of National Importance. Immediately Shri Yogesh Gupta, the then Special Director of 2 Enforcement, Kolkata has withdrawn the official facilities and work from 10.12.2018 and continued till the time of filing of application under RTI Act.
Appellant / Applicant / Complainant has filed various representations before the Hon'ble Revenue Secretary and the Competent Authority for restoration of official facilities. However no any reply was given and all those r4resentations are still pending for adjudication.
On 20.03.2020 Lock Down was declared due to COVID-19. However, applicant continued to attend office looking into the nature of her work. On 06.04.2020 (Gazetted Holiday) Shri Yogesh Gupta has directed the appellant/complainant to work from home. On 15.04.2020, Hon'ble Home Secretary directed all the Central Govt. Employees to attend office. However, appellant was asked to continue to sit at home. It is pertinent to note here that appellant was neither allowed to attend the office nor any work was assigned to her. Therefore she preferred an Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata. Notice was issued to the Honble Home Secretary, Revenue Secretary, Director of Enforcement. Director of Enforcement has filed one application of perjury and affidavit report and has submitted false information on affidavit, not only that the Director of Enforcement has made personal comments about moral, character and integrity of the applicant exceeding the official decorum. Therefore, the applicant has preferred an application for contempt of Court before the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata. The said copy was also served to the Hon'ble Home Secretary.
The Hon'ble Home Secretary has informed the applicant/ complainant that her representation regarding filing of false affidavit report by the Director was forwarded to the Revenue Secretary for passing necessary orders.
Complainant has also submitted her representation before the Hon'ble Revenue Secretary and further requested to pass an reasoned order and prayed for deciding the representation forwarded by the Honble Home Secretary.
The Honble Home Secretary vide his office Memorandum dated 26.10.2020 issued from F.No. 40-63/2020-NDM-1, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Disaster Management Division issued by Deputy Secretary M. Subramanium has informed that the representation addressed to the Hon'ble Home Minister of India has been forwarded by him vide the said Memorandum to the Hon'ble Secretary, Deptt. of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi for taking necessary action. Applicant vide her mail dated 08.01.2021 has requested to provide the information, however the applicant has not received any information. Therefore, 3 the present application under Right To Information is filed with a humble request to provide the following information and intimation for inspection :
1. What is the status of the representation forwarded by the Hon'ble Home Secretary of India?
2. Whether the cognizance of the said representation is taken and whether Hon'ble Home Minister of India was pleased to pass appropriate orders. If yes, kindly provide the copy of the order of Competent Authority.
3. Permission for inspection of the said file record and taking relevant extracts from the said file record under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
4. Action taken for giving false information on affidavit to the Court under Central Civil Service Rules.
5. While filing the false 'davit report personal comments exceeding the official capacity about character integrity and moral of the applicant has been made like -
"she is making extraneous demands or threatening with allegations of molestations."
"She was roaming on road."
Misusing of the internet facility and using it for other purposes. She is burden upon payer money.
She is using molestation as a weapon of threat espionage.
"She is not entitled even for bicycle."
6. Whether any action is proposed for making such personal derogatory remarks on character outrageously to unbridled modesty as lady Law Officer under Central Civil Service Rules or other criminal laws in existence.
7. Using of such unconstitutional language with personal remarks is prohibitory, punishable not only under criminal law but Central Civil Service Rules. Details of proceedings initiated if any."
CIC/DOREV/C/2021/112999 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.01.2021 seeking information as under:
"On 07.12.2018 complainant has submitted legal opinion in the cases of National Importance. Immediately Shri Yogesh Gupta, the then Special Director of Enforcement, Kolkata has withdrawn the official facilities and work from 10.12.2018 and continued till the time of filing of application under RTI Act. Appellant / Applicant / Complainant has filed various representations before the Hon'ble Revenue Secretary and the Competent Authority for restoration of official 4 facilities. However, no any reply was given and all those r4resentations are still pending for adjudication.
On 20.03.2020 Lock Down was declared due to COVID-19. However, applicant continued to attend office looking into the nature of her work. On 06.04.2020 (Gazetted Holiday) Shri Yogesh Gupta has directed the appellant/complainant to work from home. On 15.04.2020, Hon'ble Home Secretary directed all the Central Govt. Employees to attend office. However, appellant was asked to continue to sit at home. It is pertinent to note here that appellant was neither allowed to attend the office nor any work was assigned to her. Therefore she preferred an Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata. Notice was issued to the Hon'ble Home Secretary, Revenue Secretary, Director of Enforcement. Director of Enforcement has filed one application of perjury and affidavit report and has submitted false information on affidavit, not only that the Director of Enforcement has made personal comments about moral, character and integrity of the applicant exceeding the official decorum. Therefore, the applicant has preferred an application for contempt of Court before the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata. The said copy was also served to the Hon'ble Home Secretary.
The Hon'ble Home Secretary has informed the applicant/ complainant that her representation regarding filing of false affidavit report by the Director was forwarded to the Revenue Secretary for passing necessary orders.
Complainant has also submitted her representation before the Hon'ble Revenue Secretary and further requested to pass an reasoned order and prayed for deciding the representation forwarded by the Hon'ble Home Secretary.
Applicant has submitted her representation to the Hon'ble Cabinet Secretary with a humble prayer to take cognizance of the same. Vide letter dated 21.12.2020, the Hon'ble Cabinet Secretary vide CAB.SECTT.ID No.... has forwarded the representation to the Hon'ble Joint Secretary, Deptt. of Revenue for action as deemed appropriate. The copy of the said letter is enclosed herewith for kind perusal. Applicant vide her e-mail dated 08.01.2021 has further requested to kindly provide the information.....
2. What is the status of the representation forwarded by the Hon'ble Cabinet Secretary of India?5
3. Whether the cognizance of the said representation is taken and whether Hon'ble Prime Minister of India was pleased to pass appropriate orders. If yes, kindly provide the copy of the order of Competent Authority.
4. Permission for inspection of the said file record and taking relevant extracts from the said file record under the Right To Information Act, 2005.
5. Action taken for giving false information on affidavit to the Court under Central Civil Service Rules.
6. While filing the false 'davit report personal comments exceeding the official capacity about character integrity and moral of the applicant has been made like - "she is making extraneous demands or threatening with allegations of molestations."
"She was roaming on road."
Misusing of the internet facility and using it for other purposes. She is burden upon payer money.
She is using molestation as a weapon of threat espionage.
"She is not entitled even for bicycle."
7. Whether any action is proposed for making such personal derogatory remarks on character outrageously to unbridled modesty as lady Law Officer under Central Civil Service Rules or other criminal laws in existence.
8. Using of such unconstitutional language with personal remarks is prohibitory, punishable not only under criminal law but Central Civil Service Rules. Details of proceedings initiated if any."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a complaint to the Commission.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video conference.
Respondent(s): Vivek Mishra, US & CPIO along with Surya Joshi, Legal Consultant, Dept. of Revenue and P K Naik, Dy. Director & CPIO, Enforcement Directorate, Kolkata present through video conference.
The Complainant narrated the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application and stated on the same lines as her written submissions, reproduced hereunder:
"After filing of the application under the right to information act, both the Directorate of Enforcement and Department of Revenue has denied the information. Therefore, an complaint under section 18 of the Right To Information 6 is also filed and the Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner was pleased to issue notice to the CPIO and reply within 15 days. However no any reply is filed by them. Complaint is still pending. Representation filed before the Cabinet Secretary was transferred to Joint Secretary (Revenue) who has denied to give information stating false reasons that information pertains to Directorate of Enforcement, which is false and incorrect as the Cabinet Secretary vide its office memorandum issued to Department of Revenue had directed to take action and inform the applicant/appellant/complainant. However, Department of Revenue has chosen to transfer the application to Directorate of Enforcement, HQRS, New-Delhi who has further transferred to Kolkata Eastern Region and finally it is falsely stated that the information pertains to investigation and exempted under section 24 of the Right to Information.
If the contents of the application under RTI are seen, they are absolutely personal and requested as an employee of the Directorate of Enforcement which has nothing to do with the investigation, third party etc. However, CPIO's under the false pretext to mislead and mis guide has refused to provide information.
The information is personal related to the appellant exclusively therefore they ought to have given the information. They have denied the fundamental right of the applicant by refusing the information. Department of Revenue ought to have provided the information. There was no reason to transfer the application. As the representation was filed before the Cabinet Secretary and Revenue Secretary with a request to pass necessary orders on the representation filed before them. However, by falsely transferring the application Department of Revenue has denied information. It is stated that information cannot be generated by the CPIO, DOR. The application was for getting the order passed by the Joint Secretary and Revenue Secretary on the Representation filed therefore transferring of the application has caused grave injustice.
In this backdrop it is most humbly prayed to allow the appeal, take cognizance of complaint filed under section 18 of the RTI and issue appropriate directions to the CPIO to provide the information forthwith along with any other orders as deemed fit in the interest of justice"
Vivek Mishra, US & CPIO submitted that various representations received in the department related to the Complainant's grievances were duly forwarded to the Directorate of Enforcement for appropriate action and therefore the RTI Applications received on the subject were transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. He further objected to the allegations of the Complainant claiming the 7 transfer of RTI Application as being false and misleading and asserted that the provision of Section 6(3) empowers the CPIO to transfer the RTI Applications if the subject information is understood to be held by some other public authority.
P K Naik, Dy. Director, Dte. Of Enforcement submitted that upon receipt of the RTI Applications, the Complainant was informed that their organization is exempt under Section 24 of the RTI Act.
The Complainant interjected to state that the information sought for by her is her personal information and argued that Section 24 affords exemption to only intelligence and security related information. She further challenged the transfer of the RTI Application claiming that action on her complaints were solicited from the Department of Revenue and therefore the transfer of RTI Application was not appropriate. She also insisted that she is aware of some recent Court judgments wherein it was held that personal information is not exempted under Section 24 of the RTI Act, however, no details of such Court cases were placed before the Commission for perusal.
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes at the outset that the instant set of cases is not as much about seeking access to information under the RTI Act as much it is about demanding action on the averred complaints of the Complainant, thus seeking redressal of grievances, which is not the mandate of the RTI Act. In this regard, it is pertinent to note one of the requests of the Complainant made in the above referred RTI Application(s) as under:
"The application was for getting the order passed by the Joint Secretary and Revenue Secretary on the Representation filed therefore transferring of the application has caused grave injustice."
Further, the Complainant shall appreciate that the CPIOs under RTI Act cannot be mortified for not being in possession of the information desired by RTI Applicants, particularly, in cases where the applicants seek redressal of grievances under the garb of seeking information based on interrogative queries or queries that require interpretation and deduction or creation of information. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--8
(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;.." The Complainant's attention is 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 washeld as under:
"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) The averred judgment also records the following observations against impractical demands for information under the RTI Act as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will 9 adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
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 10 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; 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) Further, the higher Courts have passed a catena of dicta on the powers of the Commission and the ambit of the RTI Act as under:
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:
"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."
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:
11"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) Furthermore, the contention of the Complainant that Section 24 of the RTI Act does not exempt personal information from disclosure appears to be bereft of merit in the absence of the reference of the precedents she claimed to be aware of during the hearing. Nonetheless, in matters related to the exempted organizations under Section 24 of the RTI Act, the Commission is guided by a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs Union of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 83/2014] dated 03.02.2014, which held as under:
"4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organization under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption...." [Emphasis Supplied] The said judgment was later upheld by a division bench of the Court in LPA 229/2014 on 11.03.2014.
Lastly, the fact that the Complainant is seeking directions for disclosure of information in the instant cases also renders the cases as not maintainable as Section 18 of the RTI Act does not provide for disclosure of information. In this regard, the Commission places reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.2011 in the matter of Central Information Commissioner vs. State of Manipur wherein it was held as under:
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information 12 Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Adverting to the foregoing observations, the Commission finds no reason to initiate any action in the instant cases under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act and advises the Complainant to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of her grievances.
The Complaint(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) 13 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 14