Central Information Commission
Shri. Mohd Azim vs O/O The Development Commissioner (H) & ... on 1 April, 2010
Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
(Adjunct to Decision No.5187/IC(A)/2010 dated 24th February 2010)
Decision No.5263/IC(A)/2010
F. No.CIC/MA/C/2009/000396
Dated, the 1st April, 2010
Name of the Appellant: Shri. Mohd Azim
Name of the Public Authority: 1. O/o the Development Commissioner (H)
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd.
i
Facts:
1. In our Decision No.5187/IC(A)/2010 dated 24th February, 2010 the following observations were made:
¾ "2. The complainant has asked for information relating to the implementation of Rajiv Gandhi Shilpi Swasth Bima Yojana by the respondents.
¾ 3. During the hearing, the complainant stated that the above mentioned Scheme has not been effectively implemented by the respondent. As a result of which, the intended benefits are not reaching to the target population. The respondents have also not shown any interest in sharing the information asked for by him, through his RTI applications and subsequent reminders.
¾ 4. In particular, he stated that he asked for information relating to implementation of the scheme, vide his application dated July 16, 2009. The information asked for relate to the establishment of health care centres and appointment of staff, mainly doctors and the beneficiaries. His RTI application was transferred on August 12, 2009 by Sh. Amar Chand, Asstt. Director, Bareilly, to Sh. Prabhakar Singh, Sr. Relationship Manager, Lucknow. The officials did not bother to provide the information even when repeated reminders were sent by the complainant.
i "If you don't ask, you don't get." - Mahatma Gandhi 1 Subsequently, the complainant submitted his complaint before the Commission, a copy of which was also endorsed to the Additional Development Commissioner, New Delhi, on October 8, 2009.
¾ 5. In response to his complaint before the Commission, he received a reply on January 19, 2010 from Sh. Prabhakar Singh, which was dated September 29, 2009 and addressed to Shri Amar Chand. The requested information was refused u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act, without providing any justification for denial of information.
¾ 6. The complainant also alleged that the respondent has neither furnished the information to him within the stipulated period of thirty days nor has provided the details of implementation of the Scheme in question. He also presented evidences to show that the submissions made by him were returned by the respondents, who expressed their reluctance to reveal any information about the scheme. He, therefore, pleaded for providing complete information and also imposition of penalty u/s 20(1) of the Act.
¾ 7. The officials of the respondents to whom the complainant has submitted his RTI applications and subsequent representations are held responsible for violation of Section 7(1) of the Act. They have neither bothered to provide the information as per the provisions of the Act nor done enough to demonstrate that the Rajiv Gandhi Swasth Bima Yojana has been effectively implemented in true spirit. The fact that the RTI application dated July 16, 2009 was replied on January 19, 2010, after six months, merely to deny the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act, without providing any justification for withholding the information, shows the lackadaisical attitude of the concerned officials towards the implementation of the provisions of the Act. The Asstt. Director (H), Sh. Amar Chand and Sr. Relationship Manager, Sh. Prabhakar Singh are therefore held responsible for obstructing the flow of information, which tantamounts to violation of Section 7(1) of the Act since the desired information was not furnished within the stipulated period of 30 days. Both the above mentioned officials are therefore directed to show cause as to why maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), u/s 20(1) of the Act, should not be imposed on each of them. They should submit their explanation at the earliest and also appear for a personal hearing on March 31, 2010 at 3.30 p.m. failing which penalty would be imposed. The complainant may also be present.
¾ 8. The Development Commissioner of Respondent-1, or his nominee, should also explain as to why a suitable compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) should not be awarded to the complainant, u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act, for the detriment suffered by the complainant in seeking information relating to the said Health Insurance 2 Scheme implemented by the respondents. The Development Commissioner, or his nominee, should submit his explanation at the earliest, and also appear for a personal hearing on the date and time indicated above, failing which the above amount of compensation would be awarded to the complainant."
2. In response to the above direction and show cause notice, both parties were heard on 31/3/2010. The CPIO, Shri. Amar Chand stated that the custodian of desired information was Sh. Prabhakar Singh of ICICI Lombard, who refused to disclose the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act on the ground that the disclosure of information was not related to any public activity or interest.
3. During the hearing, the representatives of the respondent-2, i.e. ICICI Lombard stated that they are not a public authority under section 2(h) of the Act and therefore the provisions of the Act are not applicable to them. The officials of the respondent-1, who were present during the hearings submitted that the information held by a private entity, like respondent-2, are not required to be disclosed in response to an RTI application. Hence, the information was not accessed under section 2(f) of the Act for disclosure.
4. It also emerged during the hearing that:
(i) The respondent-1 is responsible for implementation of the Rajiv Gandhi Shilpi Swasth Bima Yojana through the insurer i.e., ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company. Respondent-1 has not only legal control over the information held by the respondent-2, but it is also responsible for monitoring of execution of this scheme such that the benefit reaches the beneficiary groups. The relevant information about the implementation of the scheme could have been accessed u/s 2 (f) of the Act, but it was not done by the respondent-1, except transferring the application to the respondent-2, which had already refused to share the information;
(ii) The respondent-1 was reluctant to receive the reminders submitted by the appellant. The evidence of refusal of acceptance of letters that were returned to the appellant was submitted before the Commission.
Decision Notice:
5. Needless to say, the effective implementation of such flagship programme as Rajiv Gandhi Shilpi Swasth Bima Yojana is of vital interest for the country, mainly because it caters for health care needs for the weaker sections of the society. The appellant, a representative of the affected groups, has asked for the details of implementation of the schemes, which have been refused to him by the respondent on the ground that the information was not available with the respondent-1 and that the same was not sharable as it was held by a private 3 body, which is not covered under the RTI Act. The averments made by the respondents are not acceptable.
6. None of the respondents have shown any sign of functioning in an open and transparent manner in so far as implementation of the programme is concerned. This is evident from the following. First, the CPIO, Shri Amar Chand merely transferred the application to the respondent, without ensuring whether the information was furnished to the requester or not. Second, the respondent-2, in response to an appeal to the first Appellate Authority refused to provide the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act on the ground that the information has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Third, the reminders sent by the appellant were returned. All this, indicates the mindset of the officials of the respondents, who are averse to the idea of functioning in a transparent and open manner, and to account for implementation of such an important health insurance scheme, as above.
7. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the CPIO, Shri. Amar Chand has failed in carrying out his obligations to accept the RTI applications and gather the information from the concerned officials/departments for transmission to the appellant. Not only the denial of information relating to the details of health care scheme, u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act, by the respondent-2 is unjustified, but the CPIO did not make any sincere efforts to collect the information u/s 2(f) of the Act from the respondent-2. The filing of 1st appeal has also not yielded desirable results, which reflect an overall organizational failure to promote transparency in execution of the said scheme that has been launched for the poor artisans. The information has thus been deliberately refused for malafied reasons lest the target groups, mainly artisans and craftsmen, should claim for their entitlements, which has allegedly not been guaranteed by the respondents.
8. In view of the lackadaisical attitude of the respondent-1 and the CPIO's inability to provide information without any reasonable cause, a maximum penalty, of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five Thousand only) is imposed on the CPIO, Shri Amar Chand, u/s 20(1) of the Act. The Development Commissioner of the respondent-1 is directed to deduct Rs.25,000/- from the salary of the CPIO, Shri. Amar Chand, in five equal installments of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) each, with effect from June 2010, and deposit the same by way of Bankers cheques drawn in favour of PAO, CAT, payable at New Delhi, to the PAO, Central Administrative Tribunal, C-1 Hutments, Dalhousie Road, New Delhi, under intimation to the Registrar, Central Information Commission.
9. Due to lack of commitment of the officials of the respondent-1, the requested information could not be made available to the appellant who also made oft repeated representations to the respondent-1. This reflects an organizational failure to function in an open and transparent manner, and to share the details of the scheme for the welfare of the beneficiary groups. The evidence on record also shows that the letters submitted by the appellant were 4 returned, because they were not to be responded. This is unfortunate. More than nine months have lapsed since the request for disclosure of the details of implementation of scheme was taken up with the respondents and this Commission. But, no progress has been made as yet. In the process, the appellant has surely suffered all kinds of losses - time and resources including harassment in seeking transparency and accountability of the public authority in the matter of implementation of health schemes for the artisans. There is, therefore, no reason why the appellant should not be compensated for the detriment suffered by him. We therefore award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act, for all kinds of losses suffered by the appellant in seeking access to information regarding implementation of the Rajiv Gandhi Shilpi Swasth Bima Yojana.
10. The respondent's Development Commissioner is therefore directed to arrange to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- ( Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation to Sh. Mohd Azeem through a bank draft latest by 31st May 2010, failing which penal interest @ 10% per annum would be applicable. A compliance report should be submitted within 10 days from the date of compliance of the above directions, failing which suitable action would be initiated.
11. The respondent's Development Commissioner is also directed to put the entire details about the implementation of the Scheme and its beneficiaries in public domain for scrutiny and assessment by the citizens. He would also be free to advise the respondent-2 to take suitable action against the concerned officials, who are not co-operating in the matter of sharing information that is largely in public interest.
12. The CPIO is also directed to furnish complete information at the earliest free of cost as per section 7(6) of the Act. The appellant would also be free to inspect the relevant records relating to the process of implementation of the health scheme in question.
13. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari) Central Information Commissioner ii Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma) Deputy Registrar ii "All men by nature desire to know." - Aristotle 5 Name & address of Parties:
1. Sh. Mohd Azeem, C/o Babu Tent House, Khaggu Sarai, Nakhasa Sambhal - 244 302 (Moradabad (U.P.)
2. Sh. Amar Chand, Asstt. Director (H) & CPIO, O/o the Development Commissioner (H), Carpet Weaving Training cum Service Centre, IInd floor, Nirman Jyoti, CGO Complex, C-18, Deen Dayal Puram, Bareilly - 243 122.
3. Sh. Prabhakar Singh, Sr. Relationship Manager & CPIO, ICICI, Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Satya Business Park, 43/15, K-A IInd floor, Naval Kishore Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow.
4. The Development Commissioner (H) & Appellate Authority, O/o the Development Commissioner (H), West Block No.7, R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110 066.6