Central Information Commission
Shubhradeep Bhattacharjee vs Oil India Limited (Oil) on 31 July, 2020
के य सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
वतीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/OILTD/A/2018/636275-BJ
Mr. Shubhradeep Bhattacharjee
(E - Mail: [email protected])
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & General Manager (Land & Legal)
Oil India Limited, Rec's Office, Duliajan District
Dibrugarh, Assam - 786602
... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.07.2020
Date of Decision : 30.07.2020
Date of RTI application 22.09.2018
CPIO's response 25.10.2018
Date of the First Appeal 24.10.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 27.11.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of names and registration numbers of the doctors assigned in the Oil India Ltd CSR project Sparsha by St. Lukes, Tinsukia & Chabua.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 25.10.2018 stated that the information was not available. Hence, could not be provided. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 27.11.2018 stated that reply/ information was forwarded to the Appellant by CPIO vide letter dated 25.10.2018 and disposed off the Appeal.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 6
Appellant: Mr. Shubhradeep Bhattacharjee through VC/TC;
Respondent: Ms. Syeda Nishat Shadmani, Manager (Legal) and Mr. P. Goswami, Sr. Officer, CSR Department through TC;
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that although he had received partial information from the CPIO he did not receive the registration numbers of the doctors assigned in the Oil India Ltd CSR project Sparsha by St. Lukes, Tinsukia & Chabua despite the fact that such details were available on the website of the Medical Council of India. In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA and stated that the Registration Number of the Doctors was denied u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 being the personal information of the concerned Doctors. On being queried by the Commission regarding the earlier decision of the Commission in CIC/MH&FW/A/2018/614703 DOH 09.04.2019 wherein it had instructed the Respondent (MCI) to suo motu disclose the IMR Registration Numbers of doctors on their website in the larger public interest and its compliance by the MCI, the Respondent feigned ignorance but agreed to obtain the information from the St. Lukes, Tinsukia & Chabua Hospital and provide the same to the Appellant. Due to the ongoing COVID Pandemic, the Respondent prayed for a period of 21 days to comply with the direction of the Commission.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent wherein while re- iterating the action taken in the matter, the Respondent stated that the Appellant had filed another Appeal through e-mail on 09.11.2018 which was responded by the Appellate Authority vide Order dated 27.11.2018. It was advised by the Appellate Authority that although information relating to doctors assigned under the project is in the domain of the private party i.e., St Lukes, Tinsukia & Chabua Hospital and the same information is not retained at OIL, however, in terms of Sec-2(f) of the Act information available with a private body, which can be accessed by the public authority, can also be furnished. In the instant case since the project in question has been funded by OIL, and it is within the ambit of OIL to request St Lukes, Tinsukia & Chabua to furnish the information, the CPIO was accordingly advised to collect the information and furnish the same to the Appellant. Thereafter, in compliance of Order of Appellate Authority dated 27.11.2018, the CPIO after gaining access to the information from St Lukes, Hospital had furnished the information to the Applicant vide letter dated 04.12.2018. The names of the Doctors engaged for the FY-2017-18 were duly provided, however the Registration numbers of the Doctors being personal information and having no relationship to any public activity or interest was exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Further, it was submitted that in the instant Appeal, the Appellant had levelled unfounded and baseless alleged imputations of negligence against the Company in the implementation of the Project "Sparsha" which is a Project under CSR providing mobiie healthcare in terms of 'Mobile Dispensary' for primary health care needs of the people in remote areas of OIL's operational districts where the accessibility to healthcare is a challenge. The Project is functional through a joint effort between OIL and St Lukes, Hospital executed through an MoU for providing the requisite services for running of the Mobile Dispensary. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is submitted that the Respondent, being the Public Authority had made necessary efforts to access information available with a private body i.e., St Lukes Hospital and have accordingly provided it to the Applicant through Additional information vide Letter dated 04.12.2018.Page 2 of 6
The Commission on perusal of the available records and after hearing both the parties observed that a clear and cogent response was not provided to the Appellant which was part of the duties and responsibilities of the CPIO/ FAA. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken".
The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non- disclosure."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo- motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held 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 Page 3 of 6 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."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
Page 4 of 6The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Sayyed Education Society v. State of Maharashtra, WP 1305/2011 dated 12.02.2014 had held that public authorities are under a statutory obligation to maintain records and disseminate as per the provisions of the Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. The High Court in this respect, held as under:
"Needless to state that as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 14 in the case of CBSE and Another (supra), Public Authorities are under an obligation to maintain records and disseminate the information in the manner provided under Section 4 of the RTI act. The submission of the petitioner that it is an onerous task to supply documents, therefore is required to be rejected. The Law mandates preserving of documents, supplying copies thereof to the applicant, in our view, cannot be said to be an onerous task."
Above all the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 had held as under:
"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy."
In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Treesha Irish v. The CPIO and Ors. WP (C) No. 6532 of 2006 dated 30.08.2010 wherein it was held as under:
"23. There is no provision anywhere in the Act to the effect that information can be refused to be disclosed if no public interest is involved. Of course in a case of personal information, if it has no relationship with any public activity or interest, the information officer has discretion to refuse to disclose the same, if the larger public interest does not justify disclosure of such information. But on the ground of lack of public interest involved alone, the public information officer cannot refuse to disclose the information, without a finding first that the information is personal information having no relationship to any public activity or interest."
Moreover, the Commission observed that similar issues were heard and adjudicated by it in CIC/MH&FW/A/2018/614703 DOH 09.04.2019 (Amresh Chandra Mathur vs. MCI) wherein the Respondent Public Authority i.e., MCI was instructed to suo motu disclose the IMR Registration Numbers of doctors on their website in the larger public interest. The Respondent Pulic Authority i.e., MCI reported the compliance of the said decision in the matter of Mr. Ganesh Kumar vs. MCI CIC/MEDCI/A/2018/104302-BJ dated 12.06.2019.
Page 5 of 6DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the earlier decision pronounced by the Commission in CIC/MH&FW/A/2018/614703 DOH 09.04.2019, the Commission instructs the Respondent to disclose the registration numbers of the doctors assigned in the Oil India Ltd CSR project Sparsha by St. Lukes, Tinsukia & Chabua in the larger public interest within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email, as agreed.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(The order will be posted on the website of the Commission) (Bimal Julka) ( बमल जु का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मु य सूचना आयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) (K.L. Das) (के.एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 30.07.2020 Copy to:
1. Chairman and Managing Director, Oil India Ltd., Plot No 19, Near Film City, Sector 16A, Noida- 201301 Page 6 of 6