Central Information Commission
K Balu vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... on 13 October, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/BHELD/C/2023/612265
K BALU ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Corporate Office, BHEL
House, Siri Fort, New Delhi- 110049 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03/10/2023
Date of Decision : 03/10/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 27/12/2022
CPIO replied on : 24/01/2023 & 11/02/2023
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Complaint dated : 07/03/2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.12.2022 with the CPIO, BHEL- Corporate Office seeking the following information:
"A representation dated 08/12/2022 addressed to Mr S V Srinivasan, BHEL Unit Head has been forwarded to him by the applicant. The following information is requested relevant to this representation dated 08/12/2022.1
1) Date of receipt of this representation by BHEL-Tiruchi
2) Name of the official who received this representation on behalf of BHEL-
Tiruchi
3) Name of the official to whom Mr. S V Srinivasan, the competent official had entrusted the responsibility of responding to this representation.
4) Copy of the note if any prepared to dispose of this representation.
5) As of the date of disposal of this RTI application, the name of the official who is having custody of the representation is dated 08//12/2022.
Suit OS 202/2022 is under trial in the Sub Court of Ranipet in which Mr. Nalinsinghal CMD, BHEL, and Mr. S Kannan are being arrayed as dependents. The sub-court had forwarded the notice to the defendants. Mr. S Kannan had already retired from service from BHEL/EDN/Bengaluru. A representation addressed to the Executive Director BHEL/EDN dated 17/12/2022 has been forwarded through email requesting to take a policy decision on handling a court notice addressed to a retired employee. The following information is requested relevant to this issue.
6) Date/s of receipt of the court notice by Mr. Nalinsinghal CMD BHEL.
7) Name of the official who received or refused the court notice on the behalf of Mr.Nalinsinghal
8) Date/s of receipt of the court notice in the name of Mr. S Kannan received by BHEL/EDN
9) Name of the official who received or refused the court notice on the behalf of BHEL/EDN
10) Date of vacation of Company accommodation at Bengaluru by Mr. S Kannan.
11) Copy of the instruction or order of the Executive Director of BHEL/EDN to dispose of the representation dated 17/12/2022 2
12) Date of receipt of the representation dated 17/12/2022 by Ms. Bani Varma, the Executive Director/BHEL/EDN, and Mr. Isadore, Executive Director/Corporate HR sent to them to their email IDs
13) Name of the official to whom Mr. Isadore, the Executive Director/Corporate HR l had entrusted the responsibility of responding to this representation dated 17/12/2022
14) Name of the official to whom Ms. Bani Varma, the Executive Director/BHEL/EDN/Bengaluru had entrusted the responsibility of responding to this representation dated 17/12/2022.
15) List of mandatory documents required to include a person's name in the payrolls of BHEL Units/Offices.
16) List of mandatory documents required to include a person's name in the rolls of BHEL Units/Offices
17) Copy of BHEL Accounts Manual or Personnel Manual/ Standard Procedure /Rules about the act of including a person's name in the payroll of BHEL Units/Offices
18) Copy of BHEL Accounts Manual or Personnel Manual/ Standard Procedure /Rules about the act of including a person's name in the roll of BHEL Units/Offices
19) Name the authority empowered to approve the inclusion of a person's name in the Payroll of BHEL Units and Offices
20) Name the authority empowered to approve the inclusion of a person's name in the role of BHEL Units and Offices
21) Date of registration of my complaint regarding the payroll fraud by the Corporate Vigilance Department."
The CPIO, BHEL- Corporate Office forwarded the RTI Application to the other concerned CPIOs on 30.12.2022 through online RTI portal.
3The CPIO, BHEL- Trichy furnished a reply to the complainant on 24.01.2023 stating as under:
"Your RTI application was transferred to CPIO, BHEL, Trichy on 31.12.2022 with a request to reply to query no. 1 to 5. In this regard, the following reply is furnished in respect of query no. 1 to 5:
1. 09/12/2022.
2. The requested information is not available.
3. The requested information is not available.
4. The requested information is not available.
5. The name of the official exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005."
With respect to points no. 8-14(except point no. 13), the CPIO furnished another reply to the complainant on 11.02.2023 stating as under:
"The RTI queries relevant to BHEL Electronics Division, Bangalore Unit Are Q No. 8,9,10,11,12 & 14. The answer of the same is as follows:
1) That BHEL ED/EDN was not in receipt of any representation dated 17.12.2022/ court notice as mentioned in RTI application through email.
Since there is no such document available the answer to question No. 8,9,11,12 & 14 becomes infructuous.
2) That so far as answer to question no. 10 is concerned, same is personal information and does not serve any public purpose and is hereby rejected under Sec 8(j) of RTI Act,2005."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint on the following grounds -
"....2. The nodal officer has allocated the part of RTI application to CPIOs Ms. Shilpi Sikka, Ms. M Nithya, and Mr.R.Ramesh vide registration nos BHELD/R/E/00334, BHELD/R/E/00334/1 and BHELD/R/E/00334/2 respectively.
3. The complainant submits that there is no provision in RTI Act to nominate a nodal officer. The nodal officer has no authority to transfer an RTI application under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act.4
4. The CPIOs Ms. M. Nithya and Mr. R. Ramesh had replied to the queries transferred to them whereas Ms. Shilpi Sikka is yet to dispose of the RTI application.
5. Therefore, the complainant submits a. Ms. Shilpi Sikka, the CPIO, had intentionally denied the requested information. Hence, the Hon'ble CIC is requested to take necessary action against Ms. Shilpi Sikka, the CPIO, for denying the request under the provisions of the RTI Act.
b. The Hon'ble CIC is requested to instruct BHEL not to nominate a nodal officer for handling RTI Applications on the account of their illegality."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Shilpi Sikka, Manager (Law) & CPIO present in person.
The Complainant through a written submission dated 01.10.2023 recused himself from participating in the hearing session citing the following arguments -
"The appellant humbly submits that the CIC Ms. Saroj Punhani is biased towards the public authority. Hence, there is no use in attending the hearing scheduled on 03/10/2023.
Justification for my averment:
File No: CIC/BHELD/A/2021/608157 RTI Filed on : BHELD/R/E/20/00283 dated 15/12/2020 CPIO/BHEL/Ranipet replied on 29/12/2020, First Appeal filed on 03/01/2021 First Appeal disposed on 10/02/2021 Second Appeal filed on 06/03/2021 Written submission filed by the CPIO/BHEL/Tiruchi on 28/03/2022 Additional written submission filed by the CPIO/BHEL/Tiruchirappalli on 28/03/2022 CIC Ordered on 30/03/2022 File NO: CIC/BHELD/A/2021/613684 RTI Filed on : BHELD/R/E/20/00283/1 dated 15/12/2020 5 CPIO/BHEL/Tiruchirappalli replied on 07/01/2021 First Appeal filed on 18/02/2021 First Appeal disposed on 19/03/2021 Second Appeal filed on 01/04/2021 CIC Ordered on 21/04/2022 In file No: the CPIO/BHEL/Ranipet and CPIO/BHEL/Tiruchirappalli were arrayed as the respondents to favour the public authority.
In file No: CIC/BHELD/A/2021/613684, the fact that the second appeal was filed on 21/04/2021 was suppressed to favour the public authority.
The CPIO/BHEL/Ranipet vide his additional written statement had nominated the CPIO of BHEL/Tiruchirappalli to represent. Whereas in the order of CIC in file no: CIC/SH/C/2015/000399, the CIC had barred the transfer of RTI Application u/s 6(3) within the same public authority. In the second appeal filed in CIC/BHELD/A/2021/608157, the complainant mentioned this CIC order. This CIC had not considered this point to favour the public authority.
The CPIO had invoked the exemption u/s 8(1)(a) from disclosure of requested information.
Further, the exemption claim of the CPIO was admitted by the first appellate authority. In the written submission filed by the CPIO on 28/03/2022 just two days earlier than the hearing date of 30/03/2022, the reiterated his exemption claim u/s 8(1)(a). In spite no suggestion was put forth by the CPIO regarding the applicability of section 8(1)(e), the CIC voluntarily considered the applicability of section 8(1)(e) to favour the public authority.
The complainant submits that if the CIC is admitting the applicability of section 8(1)(e) during the hearing, then proper time should be given to the complainant for submission of the written statement. Unfortunately, CIC had not allowed such an opportunity to favour the public authority.
The complainant submits in the Supreme Court Order cited in CIC order in file no: CIC/BHELD/A/2021/608157 that the concept of fiduciary was explained. There is no fiduciary relationship exists in the information requested from the public authority. The CIC had inappropriately cited the Supreme Court order to favour the public authority.6
File NO: CIC/BHELD/A/2021/607267 RTI Filed on : BHELD/R/E/20/00241 dated 09/10/2020 filed on 14/10/2020- 16 information items Query 7 and 16 were transferred to the CPIO/BHEL/Tiruchirapalli vide BHELD/R/E/20/00241/1 CP CPIO/BHEL/Corporate Office replied on 18/11/2020 CPIO/BHEL/Tiruchirappalli replied on 20/11/2020 First Appeal against the order of the CPIO/BHEL/Corporate Office and CPIO/BHEL/Tiruchirappalli filed on 15/12/2020 First Appeal disposed on 25/01/2021 The second Appeal with a limited prayer to put the recruitment information in the public domain was filed on 01/03/2021 CIC Ordered on 30/03/2022 The complainant wants to know which rule permits to array of two or more CPIOs for the second appeal against one CPIO's order. The lack of understanding of the RTI Act may be the reason for such confusion.
The CIC had not disposed of this second appeal on merits to favour the public authority. The CIC decision without considering the second appeal prayer ridicules the information-seeking procedure under the RTI Act.
It is unfortunate to state that the CIC decision reveals the fact that the CPIO's decision, first appeal and First Appeal order were not been perused by the CIC to favour the public authority.
The CPIO had furnished incorrect information on putting recruitment information in the public domain. The candidates who applied for recruitment can only view their application status.
Therefore, no recruitment information is available in the public domain. The CIC had taken the incorrect information furnished by the CPIO without any verification to favour the public authority thereby weakening the purpose of the RTI Act to contain corruption.
For the reasons stated above the CIC is biased towards the public authority thereby weakening the purpose of the RTI Act to contain corruption. In this circumstance attending the hearing is not warranted."7
The CPIO also invited attention of the bench towards her written submission dated 29.09.2023 wherein she inter alia, stated as under -
"...It is pertinent to apprise the Hon'ble Information Commissioner that, the applicant has been making a plethora of representations/applications to BHEL Corporate Office and also to its other Units. It appears that he is using RTI Act as a tool for redressal of his grievances and as such no larger public interest is involved.
The appellant is a habitual RTI applicant who seeks information in voluminous applications wherein the information sought is usually diverse and cannot be provided by CPIO, Corporate Office as the CPIO, Corporate Office is not the custodian of all the diverse information the appellant seeks. The information can only be provided to the appellant by seeking the same from a number of deemed CPIOS which sometimes takes more than specified time to provide. As such, in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 it becomes expedient for the CPIO, Corporate Office to transfer the contents of the RTI Request to other CPIOs within the organization, in order to suitably reply to the appellant.
Since the appellant files so many applications that the CPIO loses track of the applications/appeals, most of the these contain repetitive information which adds up to the confusion and thereby these remain un-responded.
In view of all the above, it is humbly submitted that grounds raised by the appellant in the appeal are baseless which arise out of his own grievance. The appellant has already been provided with the information repeatedly. The said appeal has been made with the vexatious motive of causing botheration to the Public Authority, hence devoid of any public interest which is strictly against the spirit of the Act and is liable to be dismissed.
The appellant has no reason to be aggrieved with the reply of the then CPIO.
In view of the facts explained above, it is humble prayed that the appeal may be disposed off."
To a query from the Commission regarding the reply of CPIO on remaining points unanswered, the CPIO tendered her unconditional apology confessing the fact 8 that it was missed out due to oversight owing to multiplicity of RTI Applications received from the Complainant; however, it was completely unintentional.
Decision At the outset, the Commission rejects the contentions of the Complainant raised through his latest written submissions as none of the points are applicable to the facts of the instant matter.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission upon a perusal of records is baffled with the fact that no proper reply (covering all the points) has been provided by the then concerned CPIO to the instant RTI Application within the time frame as envisaged under the RTI Act and no substantial explanation for such delay was tendered by CPIO during hearing. Further, the reason accorded by the CPIO for the said omission is rather irksome to note as it was incumbent upon the public authority to proactively maintain/access the RTI database and to ensure that RTI Applications are dealt with in a time bound manner. If the RTI Applications received are not attended to for the simple reason that it remained unattended due to administrative lapses/ multiplicity of RTI Applications received from the Complainant, the very purpose of filing an online RTI Application would be rendered obsolete.
In view of the above, the concerned then CPIO, Shilpi Sikka (as per the records) is hereby directed to file a written explanation detailing the reasons for not giving any timely response to the Complainant. The said written explanation of the CPIO along with supportive documents, if any, should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Lastly, in the spirit of RTI Act, the CPIO is directed to share a complete copy of her latest written submission free of charge with the Complainant immediately upon receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) 9 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस$यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 10