Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Gita Dewan Verma vs Central Information Commission on 27 December, 2023

                                        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. CIC/CICOM/A/2022/661597
                                      CIC/CICOM/A/2022/661595

 Gita Dewan Verma                                              ... अपीलकता /Appellant



                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम
 CPIO:
 Central Information Commission,
 New Delhi                                                   ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

 Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 03.10.2022                 FA    : 06.10.2022              SA     : Nil

 CPIO : 06.10.2022                FAO : 28.10.2022                Hearing : 19.12.2023


Date of Decision: 26.12.2023
                                          CORAM:
                                    Hon'ble Commissioner
                                 SMT. ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                         ORDER

File No. CIC/CICOM/A/2022/661597

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) The functions/powers and duties of the above-mentioned and all of any other Nodal Officers of the CIC itself. (In case the information is not published, copies of relevant records containing it may please be provided instead).

(ii) The Lists, such as of the RTI Nodal Officer that is published for 2281 Public Authorities, of the other Nodal Officers in the Public Authorities (In case the information is not published, please provide copies of the lists that the software mentioned in the CIC Circular should be able to readily generate).

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-

i. A Copy of DOPT OM No.1/6/2011-IR dt. 07/11/2019 enclosed. ii. No such information is available on record. etc.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.10.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 28.10.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

File no. CIC/CICOM/A/2022/661595

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(1) Copy of the OM No, 1/6/2011.IR dated 07/11/2019 to all the PAs (mentioned in first sentence), only if it is different from OM of that number and date published on DOPT website (that was not issued to all the PAs).

(ii) Information about how, in the year 2019-20, CIC developed software for facilitating audit (stated in second sentence) - including particulars of officers who developed the software in case it was developed in-house and, in case it was outsourced, copies of TOR, work order, instructions, etc. issued by CIC.

(iii) Information of the grading system by which, out of the 714 PAs that communicated through the software (stated in third sentence), 131 PAs got Grade A, 128 PAs got Grade B, 96 PAs got Grade C, 89 PAs got grade D and 310 PAs got Grade E (stated in fourth sentence).

(iv) URLs at which the comments/recommendations given by CIC through software to PAs (stated in last sentence) are made accessible to public.

(v) URLs at which the information is made known to public in real-time when a PA communicates audit report to CIC through software.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-

As per precedence, list of person or persons who has/have attended hearing/hearings with Central Information dated 14/09/22 in NIC Studio, Giridih, Jharkhand, cannot be provided. However, if you indicate particular CIC 2" Appeal Registration Number, only then we can look into the matter.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.10.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 28.10.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

5. The appellant Ms. Gita Dewan Verma and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Devender Kumar, S.O, attended the hearing in person.

6. The appellant submitted that she had filed two Second Appeals through files no. CIC/CICOM/A/2022/661597 and CIC/CICOM/A/2022/661595, not for information but to inform the Commission of an error committed by the CPIO, while responding to her online RTI applications. She explained that the CPIO disposed of her RTI applications with a reply of some other RTI applications. She stated that the above mentioned error Page 3 of 6 was also informed to the First Appellate Authority, but her submissions were ignored. A Written Submission of the Appellant are reproduced as under:-

1. The information sought u/s 6(1) is not in issue in 2nd Appeals Nos.

CIC/CICOM/A/2022/661595 & 661597. The contested point in both cases is whether or not I am entitled u/s 7(9) to Online decision on Online request.

2. Both Appeals are against FAA's orders in cases in which my online requests were disposed of with online replies to some other requests. In the first instance I informed FAA that I had re-applied and asked for the wrong disposal to be expunged. In the second, I urged FAA to advise care. In both FAA ignored my submissions and volunteered the justification that correct response was sent by post. I reiterate my contention that I am entitled u/s 7(9) to online decision on online request and that section 7(9) allows no exception for CPIO's carelessness or FAA's excuses and I press my prayer for directions u/s 19(8)(a)(i) & (v), so that my Online requests are always correctly decided Online and excuses for careless violation of my right u/s 7(9) are never made.

3. In both of FAA's decisions the speed-post justification was inserted after the following standard process sheet text: "As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collate information that is not a part of the record." The text is patterned on para-10 of Part-I of guide u/s 26. Letter dated 11/05/12, cited in CIC Annual Report for 2012-13, of the then Chief IC against the said para10 is added in both cases as Link Papers D. Nos. 654747 & 654748. I request the Commission to apprise CIC FAA of the letter dated 11/05/12 and of the fact that instructions for FAA are in part-V of the guide u/s 26.

4. The other points in these cases are consequential. I have raised them u/s 19(3), but they are cause of the respondent PA because they relate to veracity of the content reported u/s 25(3) of the Act.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that vide letters dated 06.10.2022, they had furnished suitable replies to the Appellate as per their record. He submitted that the information sought is not available in their office record. Therefore, they expressed their inability to provide the information to the appellant.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties, and perusal of records, observed that above mentioned error was mistakenly committed by the CPIO because of having burden of responding to multiple RTI applications through online mode. However, the CPIO is advised to be cautious while responding to the RTI application in future.

Further, the Commission observed that in file no. CIC/CICOM/A/2022/661597, the CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 06.10.2022, wherein he stated that the information sought is not available in their office record. Further in file no. CIC/CICOM/A/2022/661595, the CPIO furnished the reply to the appellant on 06.10.2022 wherein the information sought on point no. 1 has been furnished and on points 2 and 3 is not available in their office record. Further, the reply provided on points no. 4 and 5 of the RTI application is not sufficient. Therefore, Commission directs the CPIO to revisit points no. 4 and 5 and furnish a revised reply as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.

It may not be out of place to mention that the RTI Act does not cast an obligation on a public authority to procure, collate or collect unavailable information, merely to satisfy an applicant.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 09.08.2011 in the matter of CBSE & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay &ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) has observed as under:

"35......... 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..............."

9. In view of the above observation & direction, the appeals are disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

आनंदी राम लंगम) (Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं सूचना आयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 26.12.2023 Authenticated true copy Suman Bala (सुमन बाला) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514(०११-२६१८०५१८) Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Central Information Commission, Nodal CPIO, RTI (Branch), CIC Bhawan, Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067

2. Gita Dewan Verma Page 6 of 6