Central Information Commission
Rajiv Kumar vs Edcil (India) Limited on 15 November, 2022
CIC/EDCIL/C/2021/654708
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/EDCIL/C/2021/654708
In the matter of:
Rajiv Kumar ... िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
EdCIL (India) Limited,
Corporate Office, EdCIL
House, 18 A, Sector 16 A,
Noida, UP -201301
2. CPIO,
Employees Provident Fund
Organisation, 14, Bhavishya
Nidhi Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama
Place, Rama Krishna Puram,
New Delhi-110066
Relevant dates emerging from the Complaint:
RTI Application filed on : 15.09.2021
CPIO replied on : 05.10.2021
First Appeal filed on : 06.10.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 09.11.2021
Complaint received on : 17.12.2021
Date of Hearing : 04.11.2022
Page 1 of 9
CIC/EDCIL/C/2021/654708
The following were present:
Complainant: Shri Rajiv Kumar, participated in the hearing in person.
Respondent: Shri Sunil Mathur, DGM (HR/Admn.), EDCIL, Shri Rahul
Sukhija, Assistant Manager (DES), EdCIL, Ms. Swagata Rai, RPFC-I,
EPFO-HO, Shri Anoop Kumar Arora, SO, EPFO, participated in the hearing
in person.
ORDER
Information Sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 15.09.2021 seeking information on the following eight points:Page 2 of 9
CIC/EDCIL/C/2021/654708 Shri Sunil Kumar Mathur, DGM (HR & Admin) & PIO & EdCIL (India) Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh vide letter dated 05.10.2021, transferred RTI application to Smt. Swagata Rai, Regional P.F. Commissioner - I (Exam), Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi and endorsed a copy to the Complainant as under:
Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 06.10.2021. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.11.2021, informed as under:
Grounds for Complaint:
The Complainant filed a Complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.Page 3 of 9
CIC/EDCIL/C/2021/654708 Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Complainant submitted that he has not received the relevant information qua point no. 5 of the instant RTI Application. He further added that presently he is working in EPFO, RO-Delhi South as Section Supervisor.
Ms. Swagata Rai, RPFC-I, EPFO-HO, submitted that adequate information as available in their records has been given to the Complainant vide letter dated 31.10.2022. The contents of the same are as under:Page 4 of 9
CIC/EDCIL/C/2021/654708 She further added that with respect to point no. 5 of the instant RTI Application, their office has signed an MOU with EDCIL not to disclose this sort of information.
Shri Sunil Mathur, DGM (HR/Admn.), EDCIL, submitted that the relevant information with respect to point no. 5 of the instant RTI Application pertains to HOD OTAS in their office and he further agreed to provide the same to the Complainant on the basis of available records after obtaining the same from the concerned custodian of record.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Ms. Swagata Rai, CPIO/RPFC-1, Exam, vide letter dated 01.11.2022 and the same has been marked to the Complainant, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:Page 5 of 9
CIC/EDCIL/C/2021/654708 Page 6 of 9 CIC/EDCIL/C/2021/654708 Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause to the information seeker. Since the Respondent No. 2 i.e., EPFO, has provided appropriate information as per available records to the Complainant vide letter dated 31.10.2022; hence no malafide intention of the Respondent has been established.
The Commission further observes that the Complainant in the instant Complaint has prayed before the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide information and in this regard the Commission relies on one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 has held as under:-
"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision.Page 7 of 9
CIC/EDCIL/C/2021/654708 It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden."
The Commission further observes that although an appropriate reply has been provided by the Respondent No. 2, yet the same bears considerable delay. Therefore, the Commission strictly admonishes the conduct of the concerned Respondent No. 2 for not providing the relevant information to the Complainant within the stipulated time-frame as mandated in the RTI Act. The Commission sternly cautions the Respondent public authority that in future, they shall ensure that replies to the RTI Applications shall be provided within the mandated time-frame as specified in the provisions of the RTI Act.
Further, the Complainant has raised his discontentment with the reply qua point no. 5 of the instant RTI Application and Shri Sunil Mathur, DGM (HR/Admn.), EDCIL, has agreed to provide the relevant information on the basis of available records, no mala-fide can be attributed against the Respondent No. 1. Hence, the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The complaint, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date : 15.11.2022 Page 8 of 9 CIC/EDCIL/C/2021/654708 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) EdCIL (India) Limited, Corporate Office, EdCIL House, 18 A, Sector 16 A, Noida, UP -201301
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) EdCIL (India) Limited, Corporate Office, EdCIL House, 18 A, Sector 16 A, Noida, UP -201301
3. The Central Public Information Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, 14, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, Rama Krishna Puram, New Delhi-110066
4. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Page 9 of 9