Central Information Commission
Harishanker Arjunlal Koli vs Chief Commissioner Of Custms & Central ... on 14 February, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCEVD/A/2020/693525
Harishanker Arjunlal Koli .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Commissioner of
CGST and Central Excise. RTI
Cell, Custom House, 1st Floor,
Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009,
Gujarat. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25/01/2022
Date of Decision : 11/02/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13/06/2020
CPIO replied on : 09/07/2020
First appeal filed on : 28/07/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 31/08/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10/10/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.06.2020 seeking the following information:
3 (i) "After more than 35 letters and personal request finally after application under RTI It was admitted by the department vide RTI Order No. 25/2019-20 dated 05/02/2020 Para 2 in reply to applicants point 2 to 4 that H.A. Koli has not received payment of items listed a, b and c . Please give the information regarding reasons for delay and why still not processed the matter and credited payment in his bank account. Why interest should not be demanded for delay in payment since from due date.
3 (ii) Please refer to the OIO. No. 01/Comm'r/2009 dated 28.08.2009 and corrigendum dated 17.03.2011. Last para of the said order at Page No. 19 that "'It is further ordered that the entire suspension period i.e. from 23.02.2005 to 20.12.2005 in respect of both the Charged Officers, Shri H.A. Koli and Shri H.R. Meena Inspector will be treated as spent on duty for all purposes except as indicated above.
(ii)(a) Here all purposes except as indicated above means (loss of pay restricted up to the half pay leave salary only) but not for other matter. However Shri H.R. Meena was received increments for suspension period and for period under reduction after expired of period One year from the date of said OIO dated 28.08.2009.
Shri Meena was got TWO increments ie one for regularized suspension period and second regular just after completion of reduction period One year from date of said OIO is over but H.A. Koli not received. Please given the information for difference in both the cases and why due increments are still not regularized and payment to the same.
(iii) I was submitted letter dated 09.07.2009, 14.10.2009, 12.04.2010 and 06.04.2011 and other in combined for fixation and also allowed to Grade Rs. 5400/- as after regularized the suspension period for Feb,2005 to Dee-2005 on due date of fixation in the grade from 4800/- to 5400/- there was no Charge sheet was in force against me. Therefore I am entitled for payments under next Grade of Rs. 5400/- or applicable as per rules in force time to time in force."
The CPIO furnished a para-wise reply to the appellant on 09.07.2020 stating as follows:-
2"Para 3(i):- Matter regarding issue of payment is under consideration, as the vigilance Section, HQ, Ahmadabad North has revised the amount to Rs. 670/- for reduction in increment by one stage for 1 year w.e.f. 01.09.2019 by corrigendum issued on 06.07.2020.
Para 3(ii)(a):- As per 010 No. 01/Commissioner/2009 dated 28.08.2009, states : the pay during the suspension period will be regularized for Shri H R meena, inspector. However, the loss of pay to Shri HA Koli, Superintendent, during his suspension will not be regularized."
Para 3(iii) This is not an information under RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.07.2020. FAA's order dated 31.07.2020 provided a response to each of the contentions raised in the First Appeal in a para wise manner.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: V K G Pillai, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that the CPIO has not provided the correct information to his satisfaction.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant has been provided with detailed replies and clarifications.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the relief sought for by the Appellant through the instant matter is outside the ambit of the RTI Act. The Appellant has merely narrated service-related grievances in his RTI Application and sought for reasons/justifications which do not conform to the definition of "information" as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Yet, the CPIO provided a point-wise reply addressing the concerns of the Appellant and the said reply was later supplemented by the FAA with additional clarifications, all of 3 which is in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act. At this stage, the Appellant is going into the merits of his pay fixation, deduction of excess pay etc., veracity of these arguments cannot be adjudged within the scope of jurisdiction of the RTI Act.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
It will be relevant here to cite certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act. The relevant extracts of the said judgments are reproduced hereunder:
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] 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. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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 4 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], Hon'ble Supreme Court 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....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
5"..... 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 arguments of the Appellant challenging the veracity of the information provided by the CPIO are also not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act and the superior Courts have made observations to this effect in a catena of judgments over the course of time.
In particular, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been 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 fora. 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 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."(Emphasis Supplied) 6 The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Income Tax Officer vs. Gurpreet Kaur (W.P.[C] 2113/2019) dated 21.10.2019 has placed reliance on the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court in Namit Sharma's case to emphasize as under:
"8. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the powers of the Commission are confined to the powers as stated in the RTI Act...." In view of the foregoing observations, no relief can be ordered in the matter.
However, the Appellant is advised to agitate his grievance before the appropriate forum through proper channel.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 7 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8