Central Information Commission
Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj vs Prasar Bharati Secretariat on 31 March, 2023
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/PBSEC/A/2022/127051
Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Dy. Director General (Engg.),
Prasar Bharti, DG Doordarshan,
RTI Cell, Akashwani Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28/03/2023
Date of Decision : 28/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11/08/2021
CPIO replied on : 30/09/2021
First appeal filed on : 02/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 05/01/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29/04/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.08.2021 seeking the following information and the CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 30.09.2021 stating as under:1
"(a)Purchase of books by DDK and DMC Shimla carried out during the year 2014- 15, 2015-16 and 2016-17
(b) Penalty imposed by income tax for late filling of TDR for 13-14 on DMC SML.
S.No Information Sought Reply
1. What were the instructions / directions from DG DD for purchase of books by DDK and DMC for Not available.
their libraries during the years 2014-15 ,2015-16 and 2016-17.
2. If the books have been purchased in the DDK and DMC Shimla, then please provide the certified copies of list of books, Stock register, bills paid by DDK and DMC and Head of Fund allotted and expenditure entered and booked during the year 14-15 and 15-16, 16-17.
3 Was there any verification carried out for the books purchased above during the years, if yes Not available please provide a copy of the verification record and verified stock register.
4 Was there any notice issued by Income Tax for imposing of penalty on DMC Shimla for late filling Notice copy attached, of TDR for 13-14, if yes then please provide the copy of notices received as on date, Action taken deposited amount of by DMC Shimla, orders passed by the then chief Rs.7940/- on 21-06-2018 commissioner of income tax Chandigarh for (copy of challan attached). waiver of interest penalty, including copies of vouchers /payment made to income tax for TIN of DMC Shimla : Not penalty and interest penalty paid so far. You are allotted/ available requested to provide TIN no. of DMC Shimla also, along with copy of the o notices received and action taken for payment of 7940/-.
5 What are the instructions from Prasar Bharti as well as DG DD in such cases from 2013 to 2021, where penalty and interest had been imposed by No such instructions from income tax . Was there any case earlier to this Prasar Bharati as well as DG with DDK OR DMC Shimla where penalty and DD available. interest was paid by office due to late filling or any other reason to income tax ?,if yes than please make available copy of all record, payment 2 vouchers, and notices in such cases. Was this paid personally by the than DDO or office?.
6 Under which rule head of office is empowered to Under the relevant rules order stopping of salary to IRLA and to deduct any empowered HOO to amount from the medical bills of family of Officials release/make the payments. kindly provide copy of the ruling 7 Was there any case related of officials of DDK and Sh. Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, DMC Shimla missing / not available in office then AE was missing and without any information and treated as missing was charged sheeted vide and abscornding from the office. if yes than please OM No.C-13012/01/2018- provide data of such cases, reason, detail of ZVO (Vig.) dated 30-11-2018 officials absence period-and action taken by local 1 office and senior officials in each case.
Absence period during 28- 05-2018 to 29-11-2018 (76.5 days) Sh. Jiwon Kwnar, then Sr. Technician, absence period 01-07-2000 to 14-10-
2008. The case was
contested in the Hon'ble
High Court of Himachal
Pradesh.
8 Was there any advertisement got published in
Newspapers in any of the above cases, if: yes than please provide detail of officials, mon, period of Copy of Advertisement absence, copy of advertisement published, bill of dated 23-10-2018 attached. such ads. payment voucher, and sanction/ approval sought from Senior officials in above case Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.12.2021. FAA's order, dated 05.01.2022, held as under:
"On perusal of the relevant record it is observed that Reply RTI bearing registration no. PSBHA/R/P/21/00053 was provided to applicant vide letter no. 904/51/APIOA/(RTI)2021- 22/215/226 dated 30.09.2021.
Shri Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj has filed first appeal dated 02.12.2021 with the reason that CPIO has provided incomplete Information.3
As per the provisions of the RTI Act, the Public Authority can furnish Information as available with him in the form of documents etc., but is not required to provide reasons/explanations. Accordingly, the appeal of the applicant against the order of the CPIO for not giving proper reply to his application is not tenable..."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Vikas Kumar Bhatt, Director & Rep. of CPIO, Cluster: All India Radio & Doordarshan Shimla present through video conference.
The Appellant stated at length his dissatisfaction with the reply of the CPIO on the lines of the grounds of the Second Appeal as under:
"1. No list of books has been provided for DDK and DMC Shimla Copy of the one stock register provided does not show it belongs to DDK or DMC Shimla nor bear signature of any authority, uncertified and this is not clear that this stock register is for DMC or DDK Shimla, and in case this is for DDK Shimla then what about information, stock register and list of books for DMC Shimla. No corresponding certified bills have been provided as per available copy of the stock register.
2.For 2014-15 Rs.7578/. have been shown incurred on purchase of books but no list of books„ certified copy of bills for the above amount have been provided and also does not clarify that the books purchased above were for DMC or DDK Shimla.
3. For 2014-15 03 Nos, of bills for Rs.36794/- has been provided and shown incurred on purchase of technical books but No list of books, certified copy of stock register along with information for head of fund, expenditure incurred and booked has been provided nor the bills provided show the purchase of books for DMC Shimla or for DDK Shimla I have requested information on the Head of fund and expenditure incurred and booked on purchase of books with clear bifurcation against DMC and DDK Shimla for 14-15, 15-16 and 16-17 but the information provided has been 4 clubbed/muddled to create confusion and deny surfacing of facts related to questions being asked...."
The Rep. of CPIO at the outset submitted that the available information has been provided to the Appellant, however, in light of the issues raised by the Appellant, the Rep. of CPIO explained certain technicalities of the stock register and bills that have been provided which led to the conclusion that perhaps there may be additional information that can be provided with respect to point no.2 of the RTI Application.
The Commission further counselled the Appellant that except for point no.2, all points of the RTI Application are outside Section 2(f) as the Appellant has sought for answers to speculative queries, yet CPIO has provided factual replies and relevant information, merits of which cannot be called into question.
Decision:
In furtherance of the hearing proceedings, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. 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,--
(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;.."
In this regard, the Appellant'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:
5"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) 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 6 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 Similarly, the Appellant is also advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts 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 has held as under:
"6. ....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:
"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) 7 Having observed as above, no action lies against the information provided by the CPIO except on point no.2.
The CPIO is now directed to revisit point no.2 of the RTI Application in the context of the specific dissatisfaction explained by the Appellant regarding the anomaly in the stock register and copy of bills. A revised reply incorporating the specific and available information for the said point shall be provided to the Appellant by the CPIO free of cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8