Central Information Commission
Satish Ashok Sherkhane vs Spmcil - India Government Mint, Mumbai on 24 September, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint Nos./ ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal Nos.:-
CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/609791-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/609731-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/605939-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609672-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606210-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609677-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606373-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609691-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/603107-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/601954-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604109-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604125-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604969-BJ + CIC/SPMCO/C/2017/605922-BJ+
CIC/SPMCO/C/2017/605548-BJ + CIC/SPMCO/A/2017/609611-BJ+
CIC/SPMCO/C/2017/605680-BJ + CIC/SPMCO/C/2017/608306-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/605524-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606667-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/605929-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609640-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609635-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/605906-BJ +
CIC/IGMUM/A/2018/609910-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606376-BJ +
CIC/IGMUM/A/2018/609912-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606435-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/605081-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604291-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606214-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/154310-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/601861-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/601873-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/603108-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/603991-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/154315-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604025-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607736-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607751-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607753-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607759-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607760-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607770-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607773-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/605564-BJ+
CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609615-BJ
Mr. Satish Ashok Sherkhane
.... िशकायतकता
/Complainant
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1- CPIO & Dy. Manager (R.B.)
India Government Mint (Unit of SPMCIL)
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort,
Mumbai - 400001
Page 1 of 30
2- CPIO,
SPMCIL,
16th floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi- 110001
... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 20.08.2018, 10.09.2018
Date of Decision : 24.09.2018
ORDER
RTI-1: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/609791-BJ Date of RTI application 29.11.2017 CPIO's response 28.12.2017 Date of the First Appeal 28.12.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 24.02.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points relating to the Office Order dated 28.11.2017, photocopies of file noting, documents prepared/ executed, Approval Letter and Reservation roster prepared with reference to the above mentioned order and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide letter 28.12.2017 provided a point wise response to the Complainant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 24.02.2018 provided certain clarification to the Complainant.
RTI-2: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/609731-BJ Date of RTI application 28.11.2017 CPIO's response 27.12.2017 Date of the First Appeal 27.12.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 24.02.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Complainant, vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points relating to Office Order dated 27.11.2017, Photocopies, file noting, documents prepared/ executed, Approval Letter and Reservation roster prepared with reference to the above mentioned order, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter 27.12.2017 provided a point wise response. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 24.02.2018 while referring to the web-link of their website disposed the Appeal.Page 2 of 30
RTI-3 & 4: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/605939-BJ+ CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609672-BJ Date of RTI application 24.07.2017 CPIO's response 22/23.08.2017 Date of the First Appeal 24.08.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 04.10.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint/ Appeal by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 7 points regarding copies of Approval of Competent Authority dated 05.07.2017 with reference to office order dated 08.07.2017 along with all file noting and signature of the officers, and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 22/23.08.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Complainant as available on their record. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 04.10.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response.
RTI-5 & 6: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606210-BJ+ CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609677-BJ Date of RTI application 03.08.2017 CPIO's response 01.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal 03.09.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 09.10.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint/ Appeal by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 5 points regarding copies of Approval of Competent Authority dated 05.07.2017 with reference to office orders (as mentioned in the RTI application) dated 08.07.2017 along with all file noting and signature of the officers, and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide letter dated 01.09.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 09.10.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response.
RTI-7 & 8: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606373-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609691-BJ Date of RTI application 06.08.2017 CPIO's response 04.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal 09.09.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 11.10.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint/ Appeal by the Commission NIL Page 3 of 30 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 2 points regarding copies of documents which were prepared/executed/issued by India Government Mint, Mumbai along with the file noting and signature of the officers with reference to MMDO no. 77 dated 05.08.2016, and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 04.09.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 11.10.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response.
RTI-9: CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/603107-BJ Date of RTI application 23.03.2017 CPIO's response 20/21.04.2017 Date of the First Appeal 22.04.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 20/23.05.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding report mentioned in para 1 of OM dated 23.03.2017 alongwith file noting and signature of the officer, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20/21/04.2017 provided a point wise response denying information on point no. 02 u/s 8 (1) (g) of the RTI act 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 20/23.05.2017 concurred with response of the CPIO.
RTI-10: CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/601954-BJ Date of RTI application 10.02.2017 CPIO's response 15.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 14.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 10/11.04.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points relating to the Mumbai Mint Dairy Order No. 190 dated 08.02.2017 along with file noting and signatures of the officer.
The CPIO vide letter dated 15.03.2017 provided diary order no. 190 dated 08.02.2017 to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 10/11.04.2017 disposed the Appeal and denied the request for inspection as the documents were already provided to the Appellant.
Page 4 of 30
RTI-11: CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604109-BJ
Date of RTI application 27.05.2017
CPIO's response 28.06.2017
Date of the First Appeal 03.07.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 21/26.07.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission NIL
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points seeking photocopies related to the recommendation submitted by the Disciplinary Authority based on which penalty order dated 27.05.2017 was issued against the Appellant, copies of the documents submitted by the Administration Section to the Disciplinary Authority with reference to the representation dated 10.08.2016 and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide letter dated 28.06.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 21/26.07.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response.
RTI-12: CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604125-BJ Date of RTI application 29.05.2017 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 28.06.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 21/26.07.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 8 points regarding copy of the written statements of Mr. R.M. Kamble, Mr. V.P. Worlikar, Ms. Priti Khedekar, Ms. S. S. Raibole etc. till date with reference to memorandum dated 21.03.2016 and other issues related thereto.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 21/26.07.2017 stated that the PIO while forwarding his reply dated 28.06.2017 had already enclosed 05 pages of documents which was in order.
RTI-13: CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604969-BJ Date of RTI application 05.07.2017 CPIO's response 04.08.2017 Date of the First Appeal 05.08.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 08.09.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 11 points (a to k) relating to Appeal dated 21.06.2017 as per rule 38(b) of SPMCIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules - 2010 for Office Order dated 27.05.2017 and issues related thereto.Page 5 of 30
The CPIO vide letter dated 04.08.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide order dated 08.09.2017, concurred with the CPIO's response.
RTI-14: CIC/SPMCO/C/2017/605922-BJ Date of RTI application 31.07.2017 CPIO's response 07.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal 10.09.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 25.09.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 15 points relating to the RTI status form dated 20.07.2017 wherein it was mentioned that his complaint dated 07.01.2017 was sent to the CVO, SPMCIL on 06.06.2017 and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide letter 07.09.2017 provided a point wise response to the Complainant. Dissatisfied by the response the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 25.09.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response.
RTI-15 & 16: CIC/SPMCO/C/2017/605548-BJ+ CIC/SPMCO/A/2017/609611-BJ Date of RTI application 30.08.2017 CPIO's response 22.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission NIL Date of RTI application 30.08.2017 CPIO's response 22.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal 28.09.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 27.10.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding exact remark of Shri Ajai Kumar Srivastav with reference to note dated 28.02.2015. The CPIO, vide letter dated 22.09.2017 referred to the definition section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 and further stated that the CPIO could only provide the copy of the available records; he could not create new records in order to address specific queries/solve the problems of the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Complainant approached the Page 6 of 30 Commission. In Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2017/609611-BJ, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 27.10.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response.
RTI-17: CIC/SPMCO/C/2017/605680-BJ Date of RTI application 16.08.2017 CPIO's response 15.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal 19.09.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 22.09.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission NIL Facts:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information relating to the applicability of OM dated 23.04.2015 to the nine units of Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi till 07.12.2015.
The CPIO, vide letter 15.09.2017 stated that the information sought was outside the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide order dated 22.09.2017 disposed the appeal stating that a reply dated 15.09.2017 in connection with his RTI application had been dispatched to the residential address of the Complainant.
RTI-18: CIC/SPMCO/C/2017/608306-BJ Date of RTI application 07.08.2017 CPIO's response 01.09.2017/ 12/14.10.2017 Date of the First Appeal 10.10.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission NIL Facts:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points relating to letter dated 29.07.2016, Xerox copy of the representation submitted by recognised Unions on 23.05.2016, copy of approval of Competent Authority with reference to the letter dated 29.07.2016 and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 01.09.2017 provided a point wise response to the Complainant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the FAA. Subsequently, the CPIO and Dy. Manager, IGMM vide its letter dated 12/14.10.2017 stated that information on point no.02 was being collated and would be provided in due course. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-19: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/605524-BJ
Date of RTI application 18.07.2017
CPIO's response 18/19.09.2017
Date of the First Appeal NIL
First Appellate Authority's response 04.10.2017
Page 7 of 30
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission NIL
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points relating to the copy of the report/ letter dated 20.01.2017 alongwith the documents executed/ prepared by Administration Section, details of employees/ officers who were custodian of the notes dated 01.03.2015 and 24.02.2016 and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide letter 18/19.09.2017 stated for point 01 that the sought application has already been provided to the Complainant vide letter dated 28.04.2017. As regards points 02 to 05, it was stated that the same was outside the purview of section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the FAA (not on record of the Commission). The FAA vide order dated 04.10.2017 concurred with the CPIO response.
RTI-20: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606667-BJ Date of RTI application 25.09.2017 CPIO's response 17.10.2017 Date of the First Appeal 19.10.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 22.11.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 2 points regarding copy of PIO's note issued to Administration section, copy of note issued by Administration section to PIO etc. The CPIO, vide letter dated 17.10.2017 provided a detailed response to the Complainant with regard to his queries. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 22.11.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response.
RTI-21 & 22: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/605929-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609640-BJ Date of RTI application 14.07.2017 CPIO's response 10/11.08.2017 Date of the First Appeal 24.08.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 28.09.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint/ Appeal by the Commission Not on Record FACTS:
The Complainant/Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 7 points regarding copies of approval of competent authority dated 19.04.2017 with reference to office order dated 11.05.2017 (corrigendum) along with all file noting & signature of the officers, copies of all documents which were prepared/executed with reference to the office order dated 11.05.2017 and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 10/11.08.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Complainant/Appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Complainant/Appellant Page 8 of 30 approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 28.09.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response.
RTI-23: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/605906-BJ Date of RTI application 15.07.2017 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal NIL First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Complainant, vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points relating to the file noting along with the signature of the officers on Administrative Note dated 28.02.2015 and issues related thereto.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI-24: CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609635-BJ Date of RTI application 15.07.2017 CPIO's response 10/11.08.2017 Date of the First Appeal 24.08.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 28.09.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points relating to the file noting, etc on Administrative note dated 28.02.2015, test report no. 339 and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide letter dated 10/11.08.2017 provided a point-wise information to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide order dated 28.09.2017 disposed the Appeal stating that CPIO has made requisite efforts to provide the available information and further endorsed 65 pages of documents.
RTI-25 & 26: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606376-BJ+ CIC/IGMUM/A/2018/609910-BJ Date of RTI application 16.07.2017 CPIO's response 10.08.2017 Date of the First Appeal 24.08.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 11.10.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint/ Appeal by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 8 points regarding name & designation of the officer of India Government Mint Mumbai who had actually decided that Electric Department dated 28.02.2015 should be provided without file noting & signature, copies Page 9 of 30 of pension rules, Provident fund rules, gratuity rules, leave rules which were applicable in his case as combine optee of SPMCIL with reference to office order dated 27.05.2017, and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 10.08.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 11.10.2017 enclosed the available documents for points no. 2 to 5.
RTI-27 & 28: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606435-BJ+ CIC/IGMUM/A/2018/609912-BJ Date of RTI application 13.08.2017 CPIO's response 09.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal 11.09.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 11.10.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint/ Appeal by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the photocopies with file noting and signatures of officers for:
1. Notice dated 17.02.2015.
2. Approval letter with reference to above mentioned notice
3. Approval of competent authority for executing OM dated 31.12.2015, etc The CPIO, vide letter dated 09.09.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Complainant.
Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 11.10.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response.
RTI-29: CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/605081-BJ Date of RTI application 13.06.2017 CPIO's response 11.07.2017 Date of the First Appeal 13.07.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 08.09.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points relating to the letters addressed by him to General Manager regarding his complaint for adopting unfair labour practices along with file noting and signature of officer and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide letter dated 11.07.2017, stated that the sought information was not specific in nature and could not be provided. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 13.07.2017 concurred with the CPIO response.
RTI-30: CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604291-BJ
Date of RTI application 13.06.2017
CPIO's response 11.07.2017
Date of the First Appeal 13.07.2017
Page 10 of 30
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission NIL
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 11 points (a to k) related to the copy of letter dated 16.01.2017 along with the file noting and action taken and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide letter dated 11.07.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAAs response, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-31: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606214-BJ Date of RTI application 03.08.2017 CPIO's response 01.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal 03.09.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 09.10.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 5 points regarding copies of Approval of Competent Authority dated 05.07.2017 with reference to 4 office orders (list provided) dated 08.07.2017 along with all file noting and signature of the officers, copy of 4 office orders (list provided) dated 08.07.2017 along with all file noting and signature of the officers, copies of all documents which were prepared /executed by Administration section with reference to the said office orders along with all file noting and signature of the officers, etc. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.09.2017 provided a point-wise response stating that point no. 4 & 5 fell beyond the scope of section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 09.10.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response.
RTI-32: CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/154310-BJ Date of RTI application 26.03.2017 CPIO's response 21.04.2017 Date of the First Appeal 24.04.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 24/25.04.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 04.08.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide RTI application sought information regarding the rules and calculations followed to reduce his pay by Rs. 6740/-
The CPIO vide letter dated 21.04.2017 stated that the sought information has already been provided in reply of his earlier application dated 07.01.2017. Dissatisfied by the response the Page 11 of 30 Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 24/25.05.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response.
RTI-33: CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/601861-BJ Date of RTI application 13.01.2017 CPIO's response 16.02.2017 Date of the First Appeal 16.02.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 14.03.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in 05 points seeking photocopies of the General Manager's approval letter dated 10.01.2017 with file notings and signatures of the officer, action taken report along with the file noting and signature of officer on complaint letter dated 02.02.2016 and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide letter dated 16.02.2017 provided the available information specifically denying information for point 02 u/s 2(f) of RTI, Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 14.03.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response and disposed the Appeal.
RTI-34: CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/601873-BJ Date of RTI application 07.01.2017 CPIO's response 07.02.2017 Date of the First Appeal 08.02.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 14.03.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in 06 points relating to the names of L.D. clerks and U.D. clerks who were deployed at the canteen department for the period from 01.01.2006 to 16.12.2016, information relating to the Office Order dated 17.12.2016 and rules under which his pay was fixed.
The CPIO vide letter dated 07.02.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 14.03.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response and disposed the Appeal.
RTI-35: CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/603108-BJ
Date of RTI application 24.03.2017
CPIO's response 21.04.2017
Date of the First Appeal 22.04.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 23.05.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission NIL
FACTS:
Page 12 of 30
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding approval of General Manager dated 22.03.2017 with reference to OM (as mentioned in the RTI) dated 23.03.2017, photocopies, file noting and signature of the officer relating to the said OM and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 21.04.2017 provided a point wise response and denied information on point 02 u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 23.05.2017 stated that disclosure of such information would endanger the life or physical safety of a person.
RTI-36 & 37: CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/603991-BJ+ CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/154315-BJ Date of RTI application 05.05.2017 CPIO's response 03.06.2017 Date of the First Appeal 10.06.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeals by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Appellant/Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 2 points regarding copy of report dated 14.01.2016 duly signed by J.G. Yadav, Security Officer against him along with the file noting & signature of the officer, and other issues related thereto. The CPIO, vide letter dated 03.06.2017 denied disclosure of information under section 8 (1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any, is not on the record of the commission.
RTI-38: CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604025-BJ Date of RTI application 19.05.2017 CPIO's response 07.06.2017 Date of the First Appeal 10.06.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 7 points regarding copies of Approval of Competent Authority dated 19.04.2017 with reference to office order dated 11.05.2017 along with all file noting & signature of officers, and other issues related thereto The CPIO, vide letter dated 07.06.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any, is not on the record of the commission.
RTI-39: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607736-BJ
Date of RTI application 27.06.2017
CPIO's response 18.07.2017
Date of the First Appeal 31.07.2017
Page 13 of 30
First Appellate Authority's response 01.09.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission NIL
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information relating to the letter dated 04.01.2017 and desired copies of the orders received from SPMCIL, New Delhi and action taken report till 07.12.2015 along with file noting and signature of officers.
The CPIO vide letter 18.07.2017 stated that the letter dated 04.01.2017 was not enclosed with the RTI application. Dissatisfied by the response the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 01.09.2017 stated that the Appellant had not sought any specific information, data or documents hence his queries were not covered u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Though registered as Complaint, the Appellant had filed it has an Appeal.
RTI-40: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607751-BJ Date of RTI application 23.08.2017 CPIO's response 22.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal 23.09.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 28.10.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information relating to his earlier RTI application dated 23.07.2017, details of the officer who had actually decided the reply to the said application.
The CPIO vide letter 22.09.2017 stated that repetitive queries were not permissible under Section 7 (9) and that the Complainant could not raise query on the competency of the Competent Authority. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 28.10.2017 concurred with the CPIOs response.
RTI-41: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607753-BJ Date of RTI application 25.08.2017 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 10 points regarding copies of the documents prepared/executed in IGM Mumbai with reference to office memorandum dated 22.08.2017 along with file noting & signature of the officers, copies of the documents prepared/executed in IGM Mumbai with reference to office memorandum dated 10.07.2017 and other issues related thereto.
Page 14 of 30None of the record relating to CPIO's reply, First Appeal and FAA's order is available on the record of the Commission.
RTI-42: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607759-BJ Date of RTI application 04.09.2017 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Not on Record FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 7 points regarding copy of office order dated 11.05.2017 along with file noting and signature of the employees & officers, copy of office order for the cancellation of office order dated 11.05.2017 and other issues related thereto.
None of the record relating to CPIO's reply, First Appeal and FAA's order is available on the record of the Commission.
RTI-43: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607760-BJ Date of RTI application 20.08.2017 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission NIL Facts:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points relating to the CIC Adjunct order in Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/002531 dated 25.08.2015 and CIC/MP/A/2014/002506 dated 28.12.2015, copies of the documents prepared/ executed with reference to the above orders with file notings and signature of the officers, copy of the complaint of Security Officer (In-Charge of Time Office) as mentioned in para 1 of Admn. Section Note dated 07.03.2017, etc. None of the documents relating to the reply of the CPIO, First Appeal or order of the FAA is available on the record of the Commission.
RTI-44: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607770-BJ
Date of RTI application 10.09.2017
CPIO's response 05/07.10.2017
Date of the First Appeal 09.10.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 07.11.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Not on Record
Page 15 of 30
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 4 points regarding copy of SPMCIL rules for the issue of annexure-IV (list of witnesses) of memorandum dated 21.03.2017 during inquiry held on 11.04.2016, and other issues related thereto. The CPIO, vide letter dated 05/07.10.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 07.11.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response.
RTI-45: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607773-BJ Date of RTI application 15.09.2017 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission NIL Facts:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points relating to the photocopies of :
1. Standing orders of Indian Government Mint, Mumbai which came into force from 05.02.1963
2. Diary order number 58 dated 13.11.1965.
3. Bombay Mint Office Order Number 317 dated 03.10.1983
4. Bombay Mint Office Order Number 208 dated 16.09.1983
5. Code of conduct of Mint Rules (Mint Code) applicable on India Government Mint, Mumbai.
6. Rules followed for fixation of 7th CPC arrears, Name and designation of Officer responsible for deduction.
None of the documents relating to the reply to the RTI application, First Appeal and order of the FAA is on the record of the Commission RTI-46 & 47: CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/605564-BJ+ CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609615-BJ Date of RTI application 23.07.2017 CPIO's response 22.08.2017 Date of the First Appeal 23.08.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 28.09.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Complaint/ Appeal by the Commission NIL FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 3 points regarding copies of official notes/documents received by PIO from the Administration Section or Dy. Manager (HR) or Assistant Manager (HR) or Officer (HR) with reference to the dates given in the RTI application and other issues related thereto.Page 16 of 30
The CPIO, vide letter dated 22.08.2017 provided a detailed response to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.09.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response. The Complainant vide his written submission dated 11.08.2018 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner (with a copy to IC-BJ) requested to entrust all his matters to another Information Commissioner to enable a judicious disposal of cases. Since the Hon'ble CIC was on leave at the time of the aforesaid letter, on his return, the Hon'ble CIC vide his note dated 21.08.2018 requested IC (BJ) to hear the cases.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant/Appellant: Mr. Satish Ashok Sherkhane in person;
Respondent: Mr. Naveen Dogra, Assistant, New Delhi and Mr. K. P. Srivastava, Manager, New Delhi; and Mr. Yogendra Prasad Shukla, Dy. Manager (OL), Mumbai and Ms. Priya Rode, OA, Mumbai through VC;
The Commission heard the first 18 matters listed above during the hearing on 20.08.2018 while the remaining 30 matters were heard on 10.09.2018. The decision on all the matters was reserved subsequent to the last hearing on 10.09.2018. The Complainant/ Appellant at the outset raised his objection regarding the presence of officers other than the CPIO during the hearing and prayed that only the CPIO be allowed to present the matter before the Commission. While reiterating the contents of his RTI applications, the Complainant/Appellant stated that complete, satisfactory and specific information had not received by him, till date. Further, it was alleged that the information sought was deliberately and knowingly withheld with mala fide intention and denied by the Respondent Public Authority. Explaining that he had sought inspection of documents in several matters, the Complainant/ Appellant submitted that the same was never offered despite reminders sent by him. It was submitted that he had lost the faith in the FAA mechanism prevailing in the Public Authority since the orders passed by him were non-reasoned and cyclostyled response merely concurring with the views of the CPIO. The Complainant/ Appellant therefore inter alia prayed for copies of point wise information in matters where the second appeal was filed by him, justification by PIO u/s 19 (5) regarding denial of information, as the onus was on him, detailed inquiry in all the matters, strictures against the PIO/ Deemed PIO/ FAA in order to properly implement RTI Act, compensation u/s 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005 and initiation of penalty and disciplinary action u/s 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the delinquent officers.
In its response, the Respondent submitted that the information held on record had already been shared with the Complainant/ Appellant. During the hearing, it was also stated that they were willing to offer inspection of all records at this stage.
On being queried by the Commission, whether he had approached to the higher officials, CMD, M/o Finance, Dept. of Economic Affairs, etc. in this regard, the Complainant/ Appellant replied in the affirmative and stated that no response was forthcoming from any of the Higher Authorities. To a question from the Commission regarding the reasons why a specific and pointed replies against the RTI application were not provided in several matters, the Respondent stated that several interrelated issues were raised in various applications because of which consolidated replies were provided by the CPIO. The Commission noted the written submissions in each of the aforesaid matters:Page 17 of 30
In its written submission dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/609791-BJ), the Respondent re-iterated the chronological sequence of the replies provided to the Complainant and reiterated the response of the CPIO/FAA.
In its written submission dated 14.08.2018, (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/609731-BJ) the Respondent re-iterated the chronological sequence of the replies already provided to the Complainant and reiterated the response of the CPIO/FAA. Besides this, it was indicated that the Complainant was dismissed from MINT services under Departmental Proceedings against leaking of official records.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 (Appeal No. CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609672+Complaint No. CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/605939)) wherein while re-iterating the RTI application, reply of the PIO dated 23.08.2017 it was submitted that the PIO/FAA had already provided the desired information as available on their record. Therefore, it was prayed to dispose off the present Appeal based on the above grounds.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 (Complaint No. CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606210), wherein it was stated that in another appeal in File No. CIC/IGMUM /A/2017/609677 against RTI application dated 03.08.2017 he had filed two separate Appeals w.r.t. his one RTI application. Thus the written submission in the aforementioned file was applicable in the instant file also.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 (Appeal No. CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609677) wherein it was stated that the PIO IGMM had furnished 05 pages of documents relating to query 01 to 03. As regards 04 & 05, being non-specific, the issue was covered under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 in CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606373-BJ wherein it was stated that the CPIO vide its reply dated 04.09.2017 had already provided the information to the Complainant in his previous complaint no. in CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609691 against the RTI dated 06.08.2017.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 in Appeal No. CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609691-BJ wherein it was submitted that the PIO had provided the point wise response to the Appellant in this matter and furnished further clarification regarding point 02 of the information sought.
In its written submission dated 14.08.2018 CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/603107-BJ the Respondent re- iterated the chronological sequence of the replies provided to the Appellant and reiterated the response of the CPIO/FAA and further explained that 04 pages of documents in respect of queries 01, 03, 05 & 06 was provided whereas on query no. 02, it was denied under Section 8(1)(g) and for 04 & 07 it was felt that no documents were executed.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/601954-BJ) wherein it was stated that the relevant information in 48 Page 18 of 30 pages was provided. While admitting that there was a delay of 2-3 days in providing the information it was stated that the demand of inspection could not materialize due to scarcity of staff.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604109-BJ) inter alia praying for copies of point wise information on RTI application dated 27.05.2017, justification by PIO u/s 19 (5) regarding denial of information as the onus was upon him, strictures against the PIO/ Deemed PIO/ FAA in order to properly implement RTI Act, initiation of penalty u/s 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005.
In its written submission dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604109-BJ), the Respondent while re-iterating the chronological replies to the Appellant also stated that 05 pages of information had been provided and prayed to dispose off the Appeal.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604125-BJ)inter alia prayed for copies of point wise information on RTI application dated 15.07.2017, justification by PIO u/s 19 (5) regarding denial of information as the onus was upon him, strictures against the PIO/ Deemed PIO/ FAA in order to properly implement RTI Act, initiation of penalty u/s 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604125-BJ) wherein it was submitted that the PIO had provided a suitable reply vide its letter dated 28.06.2017 consisting all available documents.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604969-BJ) inter alia praying for copies of point wise information on RTI application dated 05.07.2017, justification by PIO u/s 19 (5) regarding denial of information as the onus was upon him, strictures against the PIO/ Deemed PIO/ FAA in order to properly implement RTI Act, initiation of penalty u/s 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written response from the Respondent dated August, 2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604969-BJ) wherein while providing the chronological sequence of the replies provided to the Appellant, it was prayed to dispose off the Appeal. It was also mentioned that most of the issues were interrogative and superfluous in manner and seeking explanation which were not covered under Section 2(f) of the RT Act, 2005.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Complainant dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/SPMCO/C/2017/605922-BJ) inter alia praying justification by deemed PIO u/s 19 (5) regarding denial of information as the onus was upon him, strictures against the PIO/ Deemed PIO/ FAA in order to properly implement RTI Act, initiation of penalty u/s 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 13.08.2018 (CIC/SPMCO/C/2017/605922-BJ), wherein it was stated that the Complainant had mentioned the date of RTI application as 31.07.2017 but the same was filed online on 08.08.2017. The CPIO, Corporate office provided the information within 30 days and hence the appeal on the ground that no response was provided within the specified time did not hold good. This was also intimated to the Complainant by the FAA on 25.09.2017.
Page 19 of 30The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 13.08.2018 (CIC/SPMCO/A/2017/609611-BJ+CIC/SPMCO/C/2017/605548-BJ)wherein while re- iterating the reply of the CPIO/FAA, it was submitted that the applicant had sought exact remark, date & year of the then General Manager, IGM-Mumbai on the letter/document and it was not possible on the part of the PIO to give the exact verbatim of Shri Ajai Kumar Srivastav's write up since the PIO himself was unable to make out the exact reading. Therefore, it was requested to the Commission to settle the matter based on the abovementioned facts.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 13.08.2018(CIC/SPMCO/C/2017/605680-BJ), wherein the chronological sequence of the replies provided to the Complainant was re-iterated.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 13.08.2018 (CIC/SPMCO/C/2017/608306-BJ), wherein it was stated that in response to the CPIO's letter dated 01.09.2016, the Complainant vide letter dated 10.09.2017 had deposited a fee of Rs. 50/- by way of IPO forwarded to SPMCIL, Corporate Office towards the cost of providing the copies of letters/ documents under the RTI Act, 2005. On receipt of the same, the CPIO, vide letter dated 03.10.2017 provided a reply on point nos. 1 (a, b and c), 3, 4, 5 and 6 based on the inputs provided by the P&IR Division of Corporate Office u/s 5 (4) and (5) of the RTI Act, 2005. Although the Complainant had filed his First Appeal on 27.11.2017 which was approx 17 days after the permissible date but the same was disposed off by the FAA, Corporate Office on 28.12.2017.
Subsequent to the hearing, the Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Complainant in CIC/SPMCO/C/2017/608306-BJ wherein it was stated that an oral direction was given to the Respondent for providing caste certificate for point no. 02 of the RTI application. However, a reply dated 28.08.2018 was received by him subsequently, wherein the PIO denied the information u/s 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 with a malafide intention. It was submitted that both Shri Ashish Avinashi (then DM- HR) and Shri Shekhar Kumar Meena- AM (T) were public servants as per Rule 3 (j) of the SPMCIL CDA Rules, 2010 under Section 21 of the IPC and therefore they didn't have any fiduciary relationship with SPMCIL. It was also stated that both of them got job in SPMCIL through reservation quota based on their caste certificate. Therefore, Caste Certificate was not personal information and as per the latest judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if any employee got the job on the basis of fake caste certificate then he was liable to legal action under the IPC.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Complainant dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/605524-BJ) wherein it was inter alia prayed to quash the order of the PIO, justification by PIO u/s 19 (5) regarding denial of information as the onus was upon him, strictures against the PIO/ Deemed PIO/ FAA in order to properly implement RTI Act, initiation of penalty u/s 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Complainant dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606667-BJ)inter alia praying for quashing the PIO order since he had breached the RTI Act, justification by PIO u/s 19 (5) regarding denial of information as the onus was upon him, strictures against the PIO/ Deemed PIO/ FAA in order to properly implement RTI Act, initiation of penalty u/s 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 20 of 30The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606667-BJ) wherein while re-iterating the reply of the PIO dated 17.10.2017, it was prayed to the Commission to dispose off the present case based on the reply/order of the PIO/FAA as the available information as on record had already been provided to the Complainant.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Complainant dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/605929-BJ) inter alia praying for quashing the PIO order since he had breached the RTI Act, justification by PIO u/s 19 (5) regarding denial of information as the onus was upon him, strictures against the PIO/ Deemed PIO/ FAA in order to properly implement RTI Act, initiation of penalty u/s 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005. In its written submission dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/605929-BJ + CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609640) the Respondent stated that the PIO as well as First Appellate Authority of India Government Mint, Mumbai have provided the relevant information/record to the Appellant as per the provision of the Act. Hence, it was prayed to the Commission to dispose off the present case based on the above facts.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Complainant dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/605906-BJ) inter alia praying for quashing the PIO order since he had breached the RTI Act, justification by PIO u/s 19 (5) regarding denial of information as the onus was upon him, strictures against the PIO/ Deemed PIO/ FAA in order to properly implement RTI Act, initiation of penalty u/s 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission was also in receipt of a written response from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 wherein it was stated that the PIO had furnished the available documents and informed about the SPMCIL rule position vide letter dated 11.08.2017. The FAA also disposed the case in line with the CPIOs reply. Thus, it was stated that the relevant information as per the provisions of the Act was provided to the Complainant.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609635) inter alia praying for copies of point wise information on RTI application dated 15.07.2017, justification by PIO u/s 19 (5) regarding denial of information as the onus was upon him, strictures against the PIO/ Deemed PIO/ FAA in order to properly implement RTI Act, initiation of penalty u/s 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, the Appellant vide his email dated 10.09.2018 submitted a scanned copy of Admin Section Note dated 15.01.2015 as also excel sheet for the concerned file. The Commission was also in receipt of a written response from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 wherein while providing the chronological sequence of the replies provided to the Appellant, it was stated that the information was sought by the Appellant regarding his own disciplinary proceedings for leaking of official documents. During the departmental proceedings, PIO, IGMM denied to provide the information under the RTI Act after completion of the said inquiry, the available information had been furnished to him vide letter dated 28.06.2017. Further, the Appellant was seeking numerous information relating to DPC and in response to that PIO, IGMM, had given 65 pages of documents as per the provisions of the Act.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Complainant dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606376+ CIC/IGMUM/A/2018/609910) inter alia praying for quashing the PIO order since he had breached the RTI Act, justification by PIO u/s 19 (5) regarding denial of information as the onus was upon him, strictures against the PIO/ Deemed PIO/ FAA in order to properly implement RTI Act, initiation of penalty u/s 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 21 of 30Furthermore, the Complainant vide his email dated 10.09.2018 attached the scanned copy of documentary evidence for points 02, 03, 04 & 05 and also scanned copy of documentary evidence for points 01 & 06 for further necessary action. In its written submission dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606376+ CIC/IGMUM/A/2018/609910) the Respondent stated that the PIO as well as First Appellate Authority of India Government Mint, Mumbai have provided the relevant information/record to the Appellant as per the provision of the Act. Hence, it was prayed to the Commission to dispose off the present case based on the above facts. The Appellant vide his email dated 10.09.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2018/609912 + CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606435) attached scanned copy of documentary evidence for point no. 03 for the concerned files.
In its written submission dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2018/609912 + CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606435), the Respondent stated that the PIO, IGMM furnished 02 pages of documents which included approval of the Competent Authority and office copy of notice dated 17.02.2015. As regards the information relating to his own disciplinary proceedings, it was stated that the CIC vide its order in File No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001104 had already resolved the issue and reply was sent to the Appellant/ Complainant on 11.04.2017. Since such repetitive/ similar queries fell beyond the scope of Section 7 (9)of the RTI Act, the reply was sent by the PIO vide letter dated 09.09.2017 which was as per the provisions of the Act.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/605081-BJ )inter alia praying for copies of point wise information on RTI application dated 13.06.2017, justification by PIO u/s 19 (5) regarding denial of information as the onus was upon him, strictures against the PIO/ Deemed PIO/ FAA in order to properly implement RTI Act, initiation of penalty u/s 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005. In its written submission dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/605081-BJ), the Respondent re-iterated the chronological sequence of the replies provided to the Appellant and stated that queries of the Appellant were not specific in nature and not covered under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604291-BJ) inter alia praying for copies of point wise information on RTI application dated 13.06.2017, justification by PIO u/s 19 (5) regarding denial of information as the onus was upon him, strictures against the PIO/ Deemed PIO/ FAA in order to properly implement RTI Act, initiation of penalty u/s 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005. In its written submission dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604291-BJ), the Respondent re-iterated the chronological sequence of the replies provided to the Appellant and stated that 05 pages of relevant documents i.e., communication made to HQ vide letter dated 29.05.2017, GMs approval dated 11.05.2017 and the relevant copy of the rule vide letter dated 11.07.2017 had been provided to the Appellant. The remaining queries were in the nature of interrogation and seeking explanation/ reasons/ question on the competency of the competent authority and as such were non-specific.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Complainant dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606214-BJ)where it was inter alia prayed that the PIO u/s 19 (5) should justify the denial of information as the onus was on him, proper strictures be passed against the PIO/ FAA in order to properly implement the RTI Act, 2005 and initiate penalty and disciplinary action u/s 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005 for defying the provisions of the Act. The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 Page 22 of 30 (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/606214-BJ) wherein the chronological sequence of the replies provided to the Complainant was re-iterated.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/154310-BJ), wherein while re-iterating the chronological sequence of replies, it was stated that the PIO had provided the rules which were applicable for the reduction of his pay. Furthermore, it was stated that a similar query was heard by the Commission on 22.12.2016 and according to the direction of the Commission, the PIO had given the compliance report vide letter dated 11.04.2017. Thus, while submitting that the Appellant was misusing Government Machinery and using RTI as a tool, it was prayed to dispose off the matter.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/601861-BJ), wherein while re-iterating the chronological sequence of replies, it was prayed to dispose off the Appeal.
In its written submission dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/601873-BJ), the Respondent re-iterated the chronological sequence of the replies already provided to the Appellant.
In its written submission dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/603108-BJ), the Respondent re-iterated the chronological sequence of the replies provided to the Appellant and stated that 02 pages of documents were provided to the Appellant against query no. 01 and 03 and reply was denied on query no. 02 u/s 8 (1) (g) as it was the report given by the concerned officer to the Head of the Department.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/603991-BJ+ CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/154315-BJ) wherein while reiterating the RTI application, reply of the CPIO, it was submitted that the CPIO/FAA had provided a suitable reply to the Appellant as the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/604025-BJ) wherein while reiterating the reply of the CPIO dated 07.06.2017, it was submitted that the Appellant had requested for the inspection of Mint Diary order w.e.f 01.01.2016 to 18.05.2017 (records of 17 months) and the same could not materialize due to the reason that the Appellant was an ex-employee of IGMM dismissed from Mint Services under departmental proceeding and under said Mint Diary order various office orders/memos/circulars etc. were issued for all Mint Officers/Employees and even scarcity of dealing hands.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607736-BJ) wherein the chronological sequence of the replies provided to the Complainant was re-iterated. It was explained that the queries were speculative and interrogative in nature and hence were not covered under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
In its written submission dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607751-BJ), the Respondent stated that since the queries were not in material form hence the reply of the CPIO holds good.
Page 23 of 30The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607753-BJ) wherein while reiterating the reply of the CPIO dated 22.09.2017 in which the status of the proceeding was informed to the Complainant that 'departmental inquiry was still under process and concerned documents would be provided after the completion of the said proceeding'. Since, the final order in the said case was still not passed therefore, the status quo was maintained. In view of the above facts, it was prayed to the Commission to dispose off the present case.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607759-BJ) wherein it was submitted that the PIO had already provided the point wise response to the Complainant in his previous similar RTI application dated 14.07.2017. Therefore, it was prayed to the Commission to dispose off the present Complainant based on the reply/order given by the CPIO/FAA.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607760-BJ) wherein it was stated that documents in relation to query no. 01 of the RTI application was provided to the Complainant. However, query no. 02 was an adjunct order of CIC in respect of one of the officers of Mint in connection to some third employee of their Unit hence treating the same as Third Party information the same was denied by the CPIO but later given to the Complainant after getting the consent of the Third Party. Further, PIO in his subsequent letters dated 05.10.2017 and 31.10.2017 furnished available information against point no. 03. Documents against points 04 to 06 were provided by the FAA vide letter dated 06.10.2017. Thus, the available information in 19 pages was provided to the Complainant. Point no. 07 seeking all letters being non-specific was beyond the scope of Section 2 (f) hence the same was intimated to the Complainant. Thus, it was prayed to dispose off the matter.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607770-BJ) wherein while reiterating the reply provided to the Complainant, it was submitted that the point-wise response had already been furnished in this matter in which for points 02 & 03, the information sought had been denied u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act since those were in connection with other employees of IGMM and no public interest was involved in the same. It was also submitted that the PIO/FAA had provided the relevant information to the Complainant as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, it was prayed to the Commission to dispose off the present case based on the above replies.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/C/2017/607773-BJ) wherein it was stated that after an interim reply dated 14.10.2017, the PIO, IGMM informed the Complainant that the above information was beyond a period of 20 years and such old records were not traceable. Further, the Complainant was informed that the appropriate rules regarding CF/PF were as per the General Provident Fund Rules (SC), 1960 and payment/ arrears/ deduction process etc were generated through SAP module system. In view of the above submission it was prayed to dispose off the matter.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.08.2018 (CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/609615-BJ) wherein while referring to the file no. CIC/IGMUM/A/2017/605564, on a similar matter, it was prayed to dispose off the present case.
Page 24 of 30Having heard both the parties at length and on perusal of the available records, the Commission at the outset referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the 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 Page 25 of 30 to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission further 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 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:Page 26 of 30
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)]."
The 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."
The Commission also took note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"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 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 Page 27 of 30 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 public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
With regard to the imposition of penalty on the CPIO/PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. (delivered on:
01.06.2012) wherein it was held:
" 61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to ful fill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."Page 28 of 30
Similarly, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
The Commission also observed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain v. V.P. Pandey, CPIO, CESTAT, New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 4785/ 2017 dated 10.10.2017 adjudicated an order of the Commission dated 17.04.2017 whereby the Respondent was cautioned to exercise due care in future and to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished to the RTI applicants. It was decided that:
"2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the CIC had accepted that there was a delay in providing the necessary information to the petitioner, the CIC had not imposed the penalty as required under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is well settled that imposing of the penalty is a discretionary measure. In Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 a division bench of this Court had considered the question whether the levy of penalty was discretionary and held as under..........
3. In this case it is apparent that the CIC had in its discretion considered that a order cautioning the CPIO would be sufficient. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such exercise of discretion."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of R.K. Jain v. CIC and Anr. in W.P.(C) 4152/2017 dated 10.10.2017 had held as under:
"5. The question whether the CIC had the discretion to restrict the penalty or whether penalty as provided under Section 20 of the Act is mandatory, is no longer res integra. The said question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 and the relevant extract of the said decision is set out below....Page 29 of 30
6. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the CIC. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
The Complainant/ Appellant could not substantiate his claims regarding malafide denial of information by the Respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause.
DECISION Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties as well as the apprehensions/ allegations raised by the Complainant/ Appellant regarding the non-specific/ vague/ misleading responses provided by the CPIO, the Commission observed that in all the 48 applications listed for consideration on 20.08.2018 and 10.09.2018 as also 16 cases dealt by the Commission in its hearing on 22.01.2018 (except cases where suo motu disclosure of information was directed to be made by the Commission), technically the Respondent had replied in the matter. However, the Appellant / Complainant remained dissatisfied with the response as specific queries remained unanswered. Essentially, all these matters pertained to the personal grievance of the Applicant that requires administrative attention by the Management of the Company. The Commission therefore, considering the sensitivities of the matter and administrative nature of the queries, directs the CMD, SPMCIL to offer a patient hearing to the Applicant and provide a suitable point wise reply in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of this order.
The Complaints/Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 24.09.2018
Copy to:
1- The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs
North Block, New Delhi-110001
2- The Chairman & Managing Director, SPMCIL, Corporate Office, 16th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhavan, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001 Page 30 of 30