Central Information Commission
Amandeep Goyal vs Shipping Corp. Of India Ltd. on 14 November, 2018
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.: CIC/SCOTL/C/2017/176047
In the matter of:
Amandeep Goyal
...Complainant
Vs.
Dipankar Haldar,
The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.,
Shipping House, 245, Madame Cama
Road, Mumbai - 400021. ...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 28.07.2016
CPIO reply : 01.08.2016
First Appeal : Not on Record
FAA Order : Not on Record
Complaint : 27.01.2017
Date of hearing : 27.04.2018, 27.07.2018, 23.10.2018
Facts:
The complainant vide RTI application dated 28.07.2016 sought information on five points; copy of the noting giving approval by the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) to publish an advertisement in the March 2016 edition of the magazine "Bureau Times"- An international Magazine, copy of the order issued by the Shipping Corporation of India in favour of the said magazine for publication of the said advertisement and other related information. The CPIO returned the original RTI application as no ID proof was attached with the RTI application. Aggrieved with the reply received from the respondent authority, the complainant filed a complaint under the provision of Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 27.01.2017.
Grounds for Complaint The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
1 Interim Order : 27.04.2018
Complainant : Absent
Respondent : Absent
Both the parties were absent.
The complainant in his complaint submitted that all requirements for submitting a valid RTI application have been set out in Section 6 of the RTI Act, and there is no requirement for an RTI applicant to submit any proof of citizenship along with his/her RTI application. Further, as per Section 6(2) of the RTI Act, there is no requirement for the complainant to share any personal details except that which may be necessary for contacting him. That there is no requirement under the RTI Act or otherwise for the applicant to submit any proof of his citizenship with his/her RTI application. This demand to submit proof of citizenship was issued by the respondent SCI in contravention of the RTI Act. The CPIO of the Shipping Corporation of India(SCI) had refused to provide the complainant with the information sought by the complainant on ground that he had not attached any document in regard to the proof of citizenship. That the CPIO of the Shipping Corporation of India had malafidely denied his request for provisioning of the sought for information to the complainant thereby seeking to defeat the very purpose of the RTI Act. The complainant prayed to the Commission for the following:
a) To direct the CPIO of the Shipping Corporation of India to provide the information requested by the complainant in his RTI application dated
28.07.2016.
b) To impose penalty upon the CPIO of the Shipping Corporation of India under section 20 of the RTI Act and to award the complainant such compensation as the Commission may deem fit and appropriate for the harassment and inconvenience caused to the complainant because of such unlawful refusal to provide the information sought.
2c) To issue any other order which this Commission may deem fit and proper.
The CPIO sent a written submission dated 17th April 2018, stated that he had to attend to a social obligation for which he was unable to attend the Commission's hearing on 27.04.2018 and that he was on pre sanctioned leave.
In addition he relied on an earlier decision of the Commission in case no. CIC/OK/C/2008/00016 dated 26th May 2008 and submitted that regarding citizenship proof norms were laid down that "in rarest of cases we can insist for identity proof". However, as right to information is a right available only to citizens, hence he requested for the identification documents as without that it will not be possible for them to establish whether a citizen is the recipient of the information or not.
He further submitted that they did not dispose of the application and if the applicant felt aggrieved by their decision of asking for the proof of citizenship from him, he could have appealed to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) against their decision but no further correspondence was received from the applicant. Now after considerable lapse of time the applicant had appealed to the Central Information Commission against such decision of the SCI. The applicant did not follow due procedure and timelines prescribed u/s 19 of the RTI Act. He further requested the CIC to direct the applicant to do the needful in order to apply before CIC or alternatively the CIC can remand back his complaint to the Shipping Corporation of India to be treated as first appeal. Moreover, as they did not receive the copy of the complaint submitted to the CIC, they could not submit any reply to the Commission for repudiation of the points raised in the complaint memo. He requested the Commission to consider the procedural and legal violations committed by the complainant and dispose of the matter.
The operative part of the order dated 26th May 2008 in case no. CIC/OK/C/2008/00016 quoted in the above stated reply of the CPIO, SCI reads as follows:
3"9. During the hearing the Commission noted that the Respondent had asked the Appellant to specify that he was a bonafide Indian citizen saying that this was necessary under Section 3 of the RTI-Act.
10. The Commission considers this attitude of the Respondents as against the spirit of the RTI-Act. Actually Section 3 of the Act reads, 'Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information'. Nowhere does it say, nor imply, that a person would be required to prove his citizenship every time that he was asking for information. Thus, there are thousands of applications which are considered without a person providing a certificate to prove that he is an Indian citizen. This means that in the rarest of rare cases where there is a doubt that the applicant is indeed an Indian citizen, the Public Authority may ask him for proof. This, however, can only be an exception rather than the rule."
In view of the above decision, the Commission directs the CPIO to present before the Commission on the next date of hearing without fail, evidence to prove that the present case is a rarest of rare cases in which there is doubt about the citizenship status of the applicant i.e. he is not an Indian citizen.
The case is adjourned.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
Interim Order : 27.07.2018
Complainant : Absent
Respondent : Absent
Both the parties are absent.
There is no reply on record.
In view of the above, a Show Cause notice is issued to the concerned PIO, Shri Dipankar Haldar, CPIO, the Shipping Corporation of India Limited u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following :-
(i) Why he was not present on the day of hearing despite valid and timely Notice of the CIC; and 4
(ii) Why no reply was provided to the complainant in all these years.
The explanation to the above stated Show Cause notice is to be submitted to the Commission by the respondent CPIO within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The present CPIO is also to submit a report to the Commission indicating the present address, mobile no., place of posting and designation of the CPIO working at the relevant post at the relevant period. The present respondent CPIO is to serve a copy of this order to the then respondent CPIO under intimation to the Commission. On receipt of the explanation to the said Show Cause notice, further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
The respondent CPIO should note that in the event of non-submission of the explanation within the time stipulated above, the Commission has the liberty to take the required decision ex-parte against the respondent CPIO/PIO.
Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Adjunct Order : 23.10.2018 Respondent : Absent
In his written explanation dated 14.08.2018, Shri Dipankar Haldar, PIO, Executive Director (Legal Affairs) & Company Secretary submitted as under:
(i) Why he was not present on the day of hearing despite valid and timely Notice of the CIC;
The respondent stated that inadvertently the date of hearing was misread as 28.07.2018 instead of 27.07.2018. On 28.07.2018, he tried to contact the office in Mumbai whereupon he realized that the matter was already over. He also submitted that based on the above mentioned fact that the hearing was to be scheduled on 28.07.2018, he had submitted a letter before the Commission seeking an adjournment/recusal from his personal appearance on 28.07.2018.
(ii) Why no reply was provided to the complainant in all these years.
He submitted that CIC has stated in its various judgements that only in "rarest of rare" cases, the PIO should insist for the document pertaining to 5 one's identity, however, it is no where mentioned what are these "rarest of rare" cases. He submitted that he had raised this issue as there were no clear cut guidelines know to him. He also had requested the CIC to direct him whether in the given situation, he can provide the information to the applicant as he had never declined to provide this information and was waiting for the directions of the Commission.
He further submitted that the public authority for which he is discharging the duties as PIO, is engaged in shipping business which besides India has transactions with various other entities/countries apart from India. At times, there are people from neighbouring countries where they have names similar to those used in India. Hence in order to avoid implication arising from pseudonymous application, he had asked for identification of the applicant. He submitted that in case CIC directs him to provide the sought for information, the same will be provided to the applicant forthwith. He had referred to the order of the Commission in the case Shri K Bala Krishna Pillai as stated in para 10 as under:
"Nowhere does it say, nor imply, that a person would be required to prove his citizenship everytime that he was asking for information. Thus there are thousands of applications which are considered without a person providing certificate to prove that he is an Indian citizen. This means that in the rarest of rare cases where there is a doubt that the applicant is indeed an Indian citizen, the Public Authority may ask him for proof. This however, can only be an exception rather that the rule".
Decision:
From perusal of the written explanation of Shri Dipankar Haldar, Executive Director (Legal Affairs) & Company Secretary, it was noted by the Commission that the only explanation submitted by him for not providing the sought for information was that the PIO was doubtful about the citizenship of the applicant and in order to avoid implication arising from providing information to a non Indian information seeker, he had asked for copy of 6 document for identification of the applicant. The Commission is surprised at this attitude of the public authority concerned for denying the sought for information to the complainant solely on the pretext of his not-proving his citizenship status despite his submission of complete official address along with his designation in his RTI application and in the second appeal. His explanation now that he was waiting for the Commission's guidance in the matter points to a mindset of "passing the buck" to the higher authority in case of any doubt. The CPIO was duty bound to discharge duties cast upon him under the provision of the RTI Act. In case, he was doubtful about the identification of the concerned complainant, he could have ascertained his identification from his official address.
The Section 3 of the RTI Act has given the right to information only to the citizens of India but that does not mean that a Public Authority can go to the extent of insisting on the proof of citizenship and use this as a method of denying the sought for information to the information seeker. The Commission in one of its decisions in the case of Chanderkant Jamnadas Karira vs. Vice President's Secretariat [CIC/WB/C/2009/900352] dated 10.10.2010 had observed as under:
"A bare minimum requirement for a citizen who desires to obtain any information under this Act is that he shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or in Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made. It is clear therefore, that asking the applicants to declare any form of allegiance is ultra vires. For this reason it is recommended that it is only in cases where there is a reasonable doubt as to the citizenship of the applicant that the public authority may seek proof of citizenship, which presumably is the objective of the above clause."
The Commission also notes that the PIO, Shri Dipankar Haldar, against whom show-cause proceeding was initiated, during the last hearing remained absent despite the fact that the Commission did not pass any order on his 7 request for change of date for the show cause hearing conveyed to the CIC vide his e-mail dated 12.09.2018. It was also observed that he was also absent during previous hearings before the Commission. This shows clear reluctance on the part of Sh. Dipankar Haldar, the present PIO to assist the Commission in its quest for dispensation of justice under the provision of the RTI Act. Moreover, it was found that Sh. Dipankar Haldar neither attended the show cause hearing scheduled for 23.10.2018 nor did he depute any representative with proper briefing on his behalf to assist the Commission in its deliberation. In this particular case, his presence was required to prove to the Commission that the present case was a "rarest of rare" cases in which there was reasonable doubt about the citizenship status of the applicant.
All these instances of lapses noticed on his part show an apparent disregard for the status and more importantly the order of the Commission. Under the circumstances, the Commission cannot be a mute spectator to such flagrant violation of its lawful orders by the present PIO. The PIO, Shri Dipankar Haldar, Executive Director (Legal Affairs) & Company Secretary, The Shipping Corporation Of India Ltd, should accordingly be imposed suitable penalty u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act for not remaining present during the hearings held on 27.04.2018, 27.07.2018, 23.10.2018, for not complying with the order of the Commission of 27.04.2018 directing him to remain present in the next hearing and most importantly for denying the sought for information on unjustified ground.
The Commission hereby imposes penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the PIO, Shri Dipankar Haldar, Executive Director (Legal Affairs) & Company Secretary, The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Accordingly, he is directed to pay a sum of Rs 20,000/- in five equal monthly instalments. The Director (Personnel &Administration) Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., is directed to recover the amount of Rs 20,000/- from the salary payable to Shri Dipankar Haldar and remit the same by way of demand drafts drawn in favour of 'PAO CAT' New Delhi in 5 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment should 8 reach the Commission by 23.12.2018 and the last instalment should reach by 23.04.2019. The Demand Drafts should be sent to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), e-mail;[email protected] Room no. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.
The registry of this bench is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director (Personnel &Administration) Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. for compliance of this order.
The Director (Personnel &Administration) Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. is directed to take action as per the above direction and submit an action taken report within 15 days from the receipt of this order.
With the above order, the show cause proceeding is treated as closed. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
अिमताभ भ टाचाय)
Amitava Bhattacharyya (अिमताभ टाचाय
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मा णत स या पत ित)
Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कुमार तलाप )
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 / [email protected]
दनांक / Date
Copy to:
i) Director (Personnel &Administration) Shipping Corporation of India Ltd 17th floor,Shipping House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 .
ii) Deputy Registrar (CR-II), e-mail;[email protected] Room no. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi- 110067.
9