Central Information Commission
Mohit Kumar Gupta vs Registrar Cooperative Society on 30 September, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या /Complaint No. CIC/REGCS/C/2018/628678
ि तीय अपील सं या / Appeal No. CIC/REGCS/A/2018/636296
CIC/REGCS/A/2018/636297
Shri Mohit Kumar Gupta िशकायतकता /Complainant/
अपीलकता/ Appellant/
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Assistant Registrar (G/H) &
PIO Office of the Registrar Co-Operative Societies,
GNCTD, Sec-III, Room No. 48, Old Court
Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001
Date of Hearing : 29.09.2020
Date of Decision : 30.09.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
Case No. RTI dated CPIO reply First appeal FAO Second Appeal
/Complaint
628678 01.07.2018 13.08.2018 14.08.2018 - 14.08.2018
636296 01.07.2018 13.08.2018 14.08.2018 - 30.11.2018
636297 01.07.2018 13.08.2018 14.08.2018 - 30.11.2018
Since a Complaint and 2 Second Appeals have been filed by the same Applicant,
the above mentioned cases are clubbed together for hearing and disposal.
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/REGCS/C/2018/628678 (2) CIC/REGCS/A/2018/636296 (3) CIC/REGCS/A/2018/636297 [Identical RTI applications filed separately by Complainant/ Appellant] Page 1 of 6 The Complainant/ Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.07.2018 seeking information on 17 points some of which are as follows:
1. Provide certified copies of file notings, orders, minutes of meetings, Action Taken Reports, correspondences and communications made (till the date of reply of this RTI application) by offices of Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS), GNCTD and other offices of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in relation to the following email, sent by undersigned ([email protected]):
Title: Provision of Form for Empanelment of Arbitrators 2018-19 to 2020-21 To: [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Date: Email on 19.06.2018 at 1:35 A.M. [Page 1 of the Email Copy is enclosed as ANNEXURE-A]
2. Provide certified copies of file notings, orders, minutes of meetings, Action Taken Reports, correspondences and communications made (till the date of reply of this RTI application) by offices of Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS), GNCTD and other offices of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in relation to the following email, sent by undersigned ([email protected]):
Title: 1_Reminder_Provision of Form for Empanelment of Arbitrators 2018-19 to 2020-21 To: [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Date: Email on 26.06.2018 at 11:48 P.M. [Page 1 of the Email Copy is enclosed as ANNEXURE-B]
3. Provide certified copies of file notings, orders, minutes of meetings, Action Taken Reports, correspondences and communications made (till the date of reply of this RTI application) by offices of Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS), GNCTD and other offices of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in relation to the following email, sent by undersigned ([email protected]):
Title: 2_Reminder_Provision of Form for Empanelment of Arbitrators 2018-19 to 2020-21 To: [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Date: Email on 26.06.2018 at 12:57 P.M. [Page 1 of the Email Copy is enclosed as ANNEXURE-C]
4. Provide the certified copies of the reply over email given along with certified copy of the image form sent by Mr. Jitendra Kumari, ARCS (Arbitration) through Email Id [email protected] to [email protected] on 27.06.2018 at 12:37 p.m. Page 2 of 6
5. Provide the Mobile Numbers of the officers and officials posted in Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS), GNCTD. NOTE: The mobile numbers of which the expenses are paid through the public money must be available on the website of the RCS, GNCTD inclusive of the mobile number of RCS in compliance with RTI Act, 2005.
6. Provide the mobile expenses incurred or reimbursed by the office of RCS, GNCTD towards mobile numbers of each of the officer and official posted in RCS, GNCTD for the year 2016, 2017 and 2018.
7. Provide the Name, Designation, Official Contact Details of the officers who approved the printing and publication of the notice (as shown herein) in Newspapers, including Times of India Delhi Edition dated 16.06.2018 regarding Empanelment of Arbitrators.
etc. The PIO/Asstt. Registrar(G/H) vide letter dated 13/08/2018 furnished information as under:-
1 & 3 - The Computer Branch was intimated oraly. 2 - Replied alongwith the form.
4 & 7 - Pertains to Arbitration Branch.
5 & 6 - Not pertains to this section.
8 to 17 - Not pertains to Section -03.
The PIO, O/o the Registrar Cooperative Societies, GNCTD also vide letter dated Nil furnished a point wise reply as under:-
Point Reply No.
1.
2.
3.
4. This information is not available in complied form in this section.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9. Yes the web links http://rcs.delhi.gov.in and http://rcs.delhigov.nic.in are correct.
10. Web links http://rcs.delhi.gov.in and http://rcs.delhigov.nic.in are Page 3 of 6 working but due to security audit no NIC it is not working.
11. The website of RCS department was not functioning due to technical fault from NIC therefore the form o empanelment of Arbitrator could not be uploaded.
12.
13.
14. The information is not available in complied form in this section.
15.
16.
17.
Dissatisfied with information provided by the PIO, the Complainant/ Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.08.2018 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Feeling aggrieved by the refusal of information by the PIO and malafide transfer of application to multiple non‐designated PIOs of same public authority under Section 6(3), RTI Act, 2005, a complaint was filed which is under consideration in file no CIC/REGCS/C/2018/628678. Furthermore, dissatisfied due to non‐decision by the First Appellate Authority and no information being made available by the concerned PIOs, the Second Appeals under consideration in file nos CIC/REGCS/A/2018/636296 and CIC/REGCS/A/2018/636297 is filed.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Complainant/ Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that he had filed the RTI application primarily because he had an apprehension regarding irregularities in the process of empanelment of arbitrators in the public authority. Explaining the reason for filing multiple Second Appeals, the Complainant/ Appellant stated that instead of seeking the assistance of the custodian of information u/s 5 (4) and 5 (5) of the Act, the RTI application was incorrectly transferred to several departments of the same Public Authority i.e. O/o the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, GNCTD. This exercise resulted in several replies against which he filed two separate Second Appeals. He further submitted no satisfactory information was provided to him and that his first appeal was also not decided, till date. Thus, he prayed for remanding the matter back to the FAA to decide the first appeal Page 4 of 6 The Respondent is represented by Shri Gulshan Ahuja, PIO and AR-Arb through audio conference. He stated that most of the information sought pertained to the empanelment of arbitrators and that at this stage they were willing to offer inspection of records on a mutually convenient date and time to the Complainant/ Appellant. On being queried regarding the officer dealing with Arbitration Branch at the time of replying of the RTI application, the Respondent conveyed that Shri Jitendra Kumar, Assistant Registrar (G/H) who had sent the reply dated 13.08.2018 was also dealing with the Arbitration Branch and that it was not known to him as to why no information was provided by him despite being the custodian of records. On being further questioned by the Commission regarding the decision of the FAA and the details of the incumbent FAA, the Respondent feigned ignorance regarding the FAA's order but informed the Commission that Shri Padmakar Rao Tripathy, Dy. Registrar now promoted as the Jt. Registrar, is the present FAA.
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission observed that in the instant matter, the RTI application was incorrectly transferred to several officers within the same Public Authority u/s 6 (3) of the Act. Moreover, despite the transfers no satisfactory point wise information is provided to the Complainant/ Appellant, till date. The Commission noted that the transferring authority cannot be completely absolved of his duties and responsibilities as CPIO subsequent to transfer of application and that he has to ensure that the information is received by the RTI applicant.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ministry Of Railways Through ... vs Girish Mittal on 12 September, 2014 W.P.(C) 6088/2014 & CM Nos.14799/2014, 14800/2014 & 14801/2014 held as under:
"15.....Section 6(3) of the Act cannot be read to mean that the responsibility of a CPIO is only limited to forwarding the applications to different departments/offices. Forwarding an application by a public authority to another public authority is not the same as a Public Information Officer of a public authority arranging or sourcing information from within its own organisation. In the present case, undisputedly, certain information which was not provided to respondent would be available with the Railway Board and the CPIO was required to furnish the same. He cannot escape his responsibility to provide the information by simply stating that the queries were forwarded to other officials."
A reference can also be made to the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Shikha Bagga Vs. Public Information Officer, Directorate of Education and Another's, in W. P. (C) 4172/2017 dated 13.07.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"4. Clearly, transferring the petitioner's application to various schools is unsustainable. The PIO is required to provide all such information as sought for, subject to the exceptions as provided under the Act Page 5 of 6
5. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letters/orders dated 18.04.2017 and 22.04.2017 transferring the petitioner's application to various officers and various schools are set aside. It is directed that the petitioner's application be considered by respondent no.1 in accordance with law"
DECISION Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission remands the matter back to Shri Padmakar Rao Tripathy, Dy Registrar/ Jt Registrar cum FAA to decide the First Appeal in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and pronounce a clear, cogent and reasoned order on the merits of the case. The Commission also directs Shri Jitendra Kumar, the then Assistant Registrar (G/H) to submit an explanation on the factual position regarding not responding to the queries relating to the Arbitration Branch despite himself being the custodian of information. The aforementioned directions should be complied with by 15.11.2020 under intimation to the Commission.
With the above directions, the instant Complaint and Second Appeals strand disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 6 of 6