Central Information Commission
Goutam Kumar Mukherjee vs Damodar Valley Corporation on 7 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DVCOR/C/2022/140183 +
CIC/DVCOR/A/2022/149613
Goutam Kumar Mukherjee ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION,
DURGAPUR THERMAL POWER STATION,
RTI CELL, DURGAPUR, BARDHMAN-713207,
WEST BENGAL. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/07/2023
Date of Decision : 06/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from Complaint/Second Appeal:
RTI applications filed on : 29/03/2022 & 29/06/2022
CPIO replied on : 16/04/2022 & 14/07/2022
First appeals filed on : 06/05/2022 & 29/07/2022
First Appellate Authority orders : Not on record
Complaint/ Second Appeal : 08/07/2022 & 24/09/2022
dated
1
CIC/DVCOR/C/2022/140183
Information sought:
The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.03.2022 seeking "appropriate reason with "All Correspondence"; file noting & any other related information in this aspect for not taking an appropriate and timely action on the letter dated 01.12.2021 despite passing more than long 90 days."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant/appellant on 16.04.2022 stating as under:
"This has reference to your letter dated 01.12.2021, from which it is learnt that form 4 PS was not applicable/part of your job as per the work order no. 857 dated 13.08.2012. As directed kindly mention the reason why Form-4PS was not related to your job as per work order awarded to you. This is required for further processing of file/payment from our end."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant/appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.05.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
CIC/DVCOR/A/2022/149613 Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.06.2022 seeking "appropriate reason including File Noting and All correspondence for illegally holding outstanding Bills by raising an irrelevant and illegal issued in your letter no. DT/PL/EPF/825; dated 10.12.2021 which was neither connected nor a part and parcel of the work order no: - DT/PL/EPF/857; dt. 13 August 2012".
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant/complainant on 14.07.2022 stating as under:
"It is to mention that a letter vide no. DT/PL/EPF/825 dated 10.12.2021 was sent in response to your letter dated 01.12.2021 and as of now no reply was received from your end. Moreover a legal opinion was sought from the DVC empanelled 2 advocate regarding Form 4PS as mentioned in your letter dated 01.12.2021 wherein the advocate opined that Form 4PS fall within the purview of the work order issued to M/s LNB service."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant/complainant filed a First Appeal dated 29.07.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant/appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint and Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant/Complainant: Represented by Asis Narayan Biswas present through video-conference.
Respondent: Sonjay Das, Assistance Manager (HR) & CPIO along with Ms Pinky, AGM and the then CPIO present through video conference.
The Representative of Complainant/ Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the vague denial of information by the CPIO and also raised his arguments on the following lines -
[1]That, 'CPIO' has provided an irrelevant reply. Passing opinion/advise be it 'Third Party' or 'Learned Empanelled Advocate' does not come under her authority (Page No:-6) because her office has not been empowered to exercise such power under this 'RTI-Act'.
[2]That, it is evident from the response of 'CPI0' that desired information has been tacitly denied despite available at her office.
[3]That, 'CPIO' has raised an irrelevant issue (4PS Related matter) in her Letter Vide No:-DT/ PL/EPF/825; dt:-10.12.2021 (Enclosed Page No:-10B) which "Work Order No:-DT/PL/EPF/ 857; dt:-13.08.2012 (Enclosed Page No:-10C) does not endorse at all.
[4]What, subsequently 'FAA' did not respond the 1st Appeal which is not only a gross violation of Section19 (6) of 'RTI-Act' but also a gross violation of the OM No:- 20/10/23/2007-IR dated:-09.07.2009 which says as follows:-3
"3. Deciding appeals under RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should be speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at".
But this is not only for the first time that ' FAA' has shirked his responsibility, during the course of 'Hearing' of Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DVCOR/A/2019/115962; dt:-
08.12.2020, Hon'ble IC, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta took a strong objection for such evading tactics (Enclosed Page No:- 10D; 10E & 10F; Para:- 8) of 'FAA' but in vain.
[5] That, Commission is being requested to pass necessary order(s) to 'CPIO' for providing the desired information in compliance with Section 7(9) of 'RTI Act' with a compensation of Rs - 5000/= [Rupees Five Thousand Only; Rs- 2000/= for preparation 'RTI application; 1st Appeal & 2nd Appeal with typing, printing & stationaries in addition to Rs- 3000/= for harassment...."
In response to above-mentioned contentions, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submissions dated 30.06.2023 wherein he provided the chain of events/correspondences pertaining to instant matters. He further submitted that the information has never been denied to the Complainant/ Appellant and despite the fact that multiple RTI Applications have been received from the Complainant/Appellant, efforts have been made on each and every occasion to answer to every query of the applicant in the best possible manner.
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the information sought for in the impugned RTI Applications is not specific and determinate in a strict sense and is premised on Complainant/Appellant grievance and has an interrogative essence which is not covered under the definition of information as envisaged in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. For better understanding the mandate of RTI Act, the Complainant/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:
4"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/Complainant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) 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) 5 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 electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied Further, the Commission rejects the prayer of the Complainant/Appellant for awarding any compensation and is not inclined to initiate any penal action against the CPIO for want of malafide on their part. In this regard, the attention of the Complainant/Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
"61. 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 show cause 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 6 information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
In view of the above, no scope for relief lies in the matters.
However, in pursuance to clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his latest written submissions along with enclosures, free of cost with the Appellant immediately upon receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The Complaint and Appeal are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 7