Central Information Commission
Rajeev Kumar Khare vs Rajghat Samadhi Committee on 4 April, 2019
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.(s):- CIC/RSCOM/A/2017/177229-BJ+
CIC/RSCOM/A/2017/177232-BJ+
CIC/RSCOM/A/2017/177233-BJ+
CIC/RSCOM/A/2017/177234-BJ
Mr. Rajiv Kumar Khare
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
Under Secretary (Con - 2)
Ministry of Urban Development (Delhi Section)
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110108
2. CPIO
Assistant Care Taker/PIO
Rajghat Samadhi Committee
Rajghat Gandhi Samadhi, Rajghat
New Delhi - 110002
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.04.2019
Date of Decision : 03.04.2019
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/RSCOM/A/2017/177233-BJ Date of RTI application 30.01.2017 CPIO's response 06.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 25.07.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 16.11.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the details of members of Rajghat Samadhi Committee along with their tenure as also the details of remuneration and honorarium paid to them, if any, etc. The CPIO, M/o Urban Development, New Delhi, vide its letter dated 06.03.2017 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, Rajghat Samadhi Committee, for further necessary action at their Page 1 of 7 end. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/RSCOM/A/2017/177234-BJ Date of RTI application 30.01.2017 CPIO's response 06.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 25.07.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 16.11.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the appointment of members of the Rajghat Samadhi Committee, criterion based on which the members of the said committee were appointed along with the prescribed qualifications; whether there was any age limit specified for the appointment of the members of the committee, if yes, the details thereof, etc. The CPIO, M/o Urban Development, New Delhi, vide its letter dated 06.03.2017 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, Rajghat Samadhi Committee, for further necessary action at their end. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI - 3 File No. CIC/RSCOM/A/2017/177229-BJ Date of RTI application 30.01.2017 CPIO's response 06.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 25.07.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 16.11.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the number of times the Chairperson and the members of Rajghat Samadhi Committee had visited the Raj Ghat Memorial in the past three years; improvement / development / betterment of the Memorial made by the said committee in last two years, etc. The CPIO, M/o Urban Development, New Delhi, vide its letter dated 06.03.2017 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, Rajghat Samadhi Committee, for further necessary action at their end. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI - 4 File No. CIC/RSCOM/A/2017/177232-BJ
Date of RTI application 30.01.2017
CPIO's response 06.03.2017
Page 2 of 7
Date of the First Appeal 25.07.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the details of cost of maintenance of Mahatma Gandhi's Samadhi in the last three years along with the details of sanctioned amount for maintenance for the above referred period, etc. The CPIO, M/o Urban Development, New Delhi, vide its letter dated 06.03.2017 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, Rajghat Samadhi Committee, for further necessary action at their end. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Khare through VC;
Respondent: Ms. Neelam Kumari, Assistant Caretaker, Rajghat Samadhi Committee, New Delhi;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information on all these matters had not been received till date. The Respondent present at the hearing denied receiving copy of the transfer made by the MoUD and submitted that the inputs sought in the matter were furnished to the Ministry as desired by them. On perusal of its written submission, it was noted that Rajghat Samadhi Samiti (RSC) is an autonomous body under Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs with Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs as its Chairman besides ten other members (list enclosed). It was informed that persons holding eminent position in public life were appointed as members of RSC but no standard or qualification was prescribed. No minimum or maximum age has been prescribed for holding the post of Chairman and Members of RSC. Its maintenance is done by CPWD through its Civil, Electrical and Horticulture divisions and it gets an annual grant from the Ministry which is used for administrative and other matters including holding of functions. The grant received in the year 2015-16 / 2016-17 / 2017- 18 is as under:-
(Amount in Rupees) Year Grant CPWD CPWD CPWD Remarks Received (Civil) (Electric) (Horticulture) 2015-16 55372896 17161562 5384232 16028056 The balance grant is utilized on other misc. matters.
2016-17 69737436 4451376 2798955 14874667 -do-
2017-18 67537000 12103133 4129308 13563072 -do-
Total 192647332 33716071 12312495 44465795
Page 3 of 7
On the occasions of birth and death anniversary function of Mahatma Gandhi held every year the Chairman, RSC visits the Rajghat Samadhi to participate in the function. Besides this on 15th August Hon'ble Prime Minister visits the Samadhi where Chairman, RSC and Members are present but no record was maintained in this regard in RSC office. Several new programmes including organizing international seminar on Gandhiji and Manas Rajghat Katha, development works, display of Gandhiji's messages, installation of Gandhiji's statue and interactive digital display system in the parking area have been executed. The Horticulture Division of CPWD is responsible for planting and maintenance of trees but no consolidated information regarding trees planted was readily available.
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 Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), 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, Page 4 of 7 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 observed that several pertinent issues were raised by the Appellant in his RTI applications wherein generic information regarding the constitution of the Rajghat Samadhi Committee, allocation/ grant of funds to the Committee, etc were sought which ought to have been disclosed in the interest of the public at large. In this context, the Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein while explaining the term "Public Interest" it was held as under:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
The Commission also 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.Page 5 of 7
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:
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;Page 6 of 7
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)]."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO, Rajghat Samadhi Committee to e-mail and dispatch by post all the details furnished to the Commission during the hearing to the Appellant so as to reach him within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The CPIO is also advised to proactively upload the details provided during the hearing on their website for ensuring greater transparency and accountability in the affairs of the Rajghat Samadhi Committee respecting the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The 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: 03.04.2019
Copy to:-
1. Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi 110011
2. Mr. Krishan Pal Singh, SE & Secretary, Rajghat Samadhi Committee, Rajghat, New Delhi - 110002 Page 7 of 7