Central Information Commission
R L Ladwal vs Comptroller & Auditor General on 13 March, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CAGIN/A/2018/153347-BJ
Mr. R. L. Ladwal
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Dy. Director (Legal)
Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India
9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg
New Delhi - 110124
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.03.2020
Date of Decision : 13.03.2020
Date of RTI application 23.01.2018
CPIO's response 23.02.2018
Date of the First Appeal 13.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 08.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 29.08.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information the reasons why the audit of M/s Central East Delhi BSES Yamuna Ltd was not conducted till date, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 23.02.2018 stated that the information sought by the Appellant was neither clear not specific. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 08.05.2018 while re-iterating the reply of the CPIO stated that in his Appeal, the Appellant had sought information pertaining to the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India which was available on the website www.cag.gov.in.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. R. L. Ladwal;
Respondent: Ms. A. Fani Rao, Dy. Dir. (Legal) & CPIO, New Delhi and Mr. Uphar Sharma, Sr. AO (RTI) & APIO, New Delhi;Page 1 of 5
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the desired information was not provided to him, till date. He primarily aired his grievance regarding the alleged irregularity in the process of conversion of Central East Delhi Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (a Government Company) to BSES Yamuna Power Ltd (a Public Limited Company) and stated that the same ought to have been audited by the CAG. In its reply, the Respondent while re-iterating the response of the CPIO/ FAA stated that contrary to the claims of the Appellant, the audit of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd did not fall within the scope of the CAG and hence a suitable response was provided to the Appellant. Moreover, the weblink where information regarding the duties and functions of the CAG could be accessed was also provided to the Appellant. On being queried by the Commission regarding the matter being pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Appellant replied in the affirmative but submitted that his primary query/ concern regarding alleged illegal conversion of a Government Company to a Private Company remained unaddressed. To a further query regarding a similar matter being decided by the Commission wherein he had made allegations regarding irregularities in the activities the company BSES and filed the Second Appeal against the CPIO, Supreme Court of India, the Appellant feigned ignorance and stated that he was not aware of the decision of the Commission in the said matter. A copy of the decision of the Commission in the aforementioned matter was provided to the Appellant during the hearing, the receipt of which was acknowledged by him.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 09.03.2020 wherein it was inter alia prayed to initiate steps to curb the corruption in the Public Authority; imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- against the concerned CPIOs for misleading the Commission; inquiry on the matter of validity of BSES without license/ authority and filing of FIR under the SC/ ST Act; reason why he was harassed for the last 20 years and not granted promotion as per the provisions of the DVB Act and SC/ ST Act, 1996, authority responsible for evasion of taxes since the last 18 years due to conversion of PAN of CEDEDCL to BYPL on 09.08.2002.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 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."Page 2 of 5
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 to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission also observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be Page 3 of 5 drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017. [ DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions cited above as also the fact that the matter is presently sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Chief Information Commissioner) (मु य सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 13.03.2020
Page 4 of 5
Copy to:
1. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Pocket-9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi-110124.Page 5 of 5