Central Information Commission
Shish Pal vs Ministry Of Cooperation on 13 October, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MOCOP/A/2023/636065 +
CIC/MOCOP/A/2023/624200 +
CIC/MOCOP/A/2023/608920
SHISH PAL ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. The CPIO,
MINISTRY OF COOPERATION, GOVT.
OF INDIA, ATAL AKSHAY URJA BHAWAN,
CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
BEHIND NIA BUILDING,
NEW DELHI 110003 .
2. The CPIO,
National Council for Cooperative
Training, 3, Siri Institutional Area,
August Kranti Marg, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi-110016. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent (s)
Date of Hearing : 04/10/2023
Date of Decision : 04/10/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision
as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal (s):
1
RTI applications filed on : 01/04/2023, 17/03/2023, 14/11/2022
CPIO replied on : 20/04/2022 & 08/05/2023, 13/04/2023 &
13/12/2022
First appeals filed on : 13/05/2023, 21/04/2023 & 22/12/2022
First Appellate Authority orders : 13/06/2023, 10/05/2023 & 24/01/2023
2nd Appeals/Complaint dated : 25/07/2023, 18/05/2023 & 16/02/2023
CIC/MOCOP/A/2023/636065
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.04.2023 with the CPIO, Ministry of Cooperation seeking the following information:
"The following information in respect of your department organization National Council for Cooperative Training (NCCT), New Delhi may please be supplied as early as possible: -
1. A certified copy of India Gazette notification announcing the appointment of Sh. Mohan Kumar Mishra as Permanent Secretary of NCCT, New Delhi, under the Ministry of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Govt. of India, Ministry effective at that time.
2. If Secretary, NCCT, New Delhi holding the current charge of NCCT Secretary, kindly provide the certified relevant document and approval of Govt. in respect of current charge of NCCT Secretary, New Delhi.
3. Certified copy of list of cases filed by NCCT, New Delhi and against to NCCT, New Delhi in respect of its employee's service matters and other since January 2008 to till date with details of expenditure made in these cases and result thereof.
4. Certified copy of list of disciplinary inquiries holded by NCCT New Delhi against its employees from January 2008 to till date and expenditure made on these proceedings and result thereof (kindly provide expenditure details and result case wise).
5. Certified copy of expenditure incurred by NCCT, New Delhi on Secretary (Sh. Mohan Kumar Mishra) entire tour programmes from his appointment to the present date, including boarding, lodging, and travel agency fees.2
(Please provide year wise details on head wise spending such as Boarding. Lodging & Travel agent Fees).
6. Certified copy of Centre Govt. instructions vide which Group-C Employees of NCCT and its training units which has appointed on average in violations of Advertisement and Recruitment Rules and presently giving all benefits of permanent employment whereas eligible candidates were eligible at that time.
7. Please provide certified copy for the action taken on these Employees mentioned at Sr. No. 6 or any FIR has been lodged by NCCT, New Delhi. Please also provide details what action/any inquiry has been initiated against these Employees.
8. Please provide the certified copy of the Internal Committee's Proceedings of every meeting which was constituted by NCCT New Delhi vide letter dated 2-11/2021-Pers dated 06.04.2022 for RICM, Chandigarh in respect of Temporary Employees cases and recommendations of this internal committee and result thereof.
9. Certified copy of expenditure incurred by NCCT, New Delhi including its units for hiring legal counsels for defending RTI Cases In Central Information Commission. Please provide case wise expenditure details.
10. NCCT, New Delhi vide letter F.No.3-1/16/96-Pers dated 02.09.2013 vide which the undersigned allowed to continue as Steno (English) till the decision is taken by the Court of Chief Commissioner Person with Disabilities (CCPD), New Delhi but NCCT has again terminated before the decision of CCPD, New Delhi. Please provide the Govt. instructions for 2nd termination of the undersigned for which NCCT has compelled for violations their own letter dated 02.09.2013 or any order issued by NCCT, New Delhi should not be trusted in future."
The CPIO, Ministry of Cooperation, New Delhi transferred the RTI Application to the CPIO, National Council for Cooperative Training, New Delhi on 20.04.2023 for taking necessary action in the matter.
The CPIO, National Council for Cooperative Training, New Delhi furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 08.05.2023 stating as under:
3"1. No such information is available in this office.
2. RTI Act does not empower applicant to seek question. Moreover, no such information is available.
3 & 4. The information sought is vague. However, no such information is available in this office.
5, 6 & 7. No such information is available in the NCCT (HQ).
8. The matter is not finalized. Hence, the information may not be provided.
9. No such information is available in this office.
10. No such information is available in the NCCT (HQ)."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.05.2023. FAA's order dated 13.06.2023 held as under:
"....2. The response of the CPIO, NCCT, New Delhi dated 08.05.2023 with reference to RTI application of appellant has been perused. It has been observed that the applicant has asked for a copy of the Gazette notification of the appointment of the Secretary, NCCT at Point No.1. As there is no Gazette notification, the CPIO has rightly furnished information that no such information is available. Pertaining to Point No. 2, it is observed that the applicant was not sure of what information he had sought by making a conditional statement. However, considering the unexplained intention of the exact information the applicant sought, it is felt that he wanted a copy of the Order of the Ministry of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare vide which the present incumbent of the post of Secretary, NCCT has been absorbed as a permanent employee of the NCCT which CPIO may furnish to the appellant.
3. With regard to Points at 3, 4, 5 and 9, the DoPT guidelines in this regard are clear, and as per which the RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. If a Public authority has any information in the form of data or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access to such information, subject to the exemptions under Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or rules or regulation of the public 4 authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority to collect such non-available information and then furnish to an applicant.
4. Patently, no data/information with reference to RTI queries at Points 3, 4, 5, and 9 has been complied and the CPIO has rightly informed the appellant that 'no such information is available'. In so far as RTI query at Points 6 and 7 are concerned, the query at Point 6 is found to be ambiguous and contradictory, lacking clarity. Therefore, it is not possible to provide any information with reference to RTI query at Point 6 and since query at Point 7 relates to Point No. 6, it is not possible to provide any information to it, either. The CPIO has been found to have given right and complete information that no information as sought by the appellant exists.
5. Pertaining to RTI query at Point No. 8, it is noticed that formation of Internal Commines for examination of any issue for its resolution is a routine matter and the reports submitted by such Committees are confidential nature and that it is not necessary that the views or recommendations of such Committees are to be invariably accepted/implemented by the competent authority. Therefore, the CPIO has given the right Information to the appellant.
6. Pertaining to the query at Point No. 10, it has been brought to my notice that the appellant has already challenged the decision of termination of his services in a Court of Law and the RICM Chandigarh has already filed a counter reply and the appellant is fully aware of the information he has sought. Besides his query about the Govt. instructions for his second termination lacks clarity and the CPIO has rightly informed him that 'no such information is available'.
7. Pertaining to his request to refund of Rs.40/- after deducting Rs.10/-, the appellant is informed that he had deposited Rs. 50/- by IPO voluntarily against the prescribed fee of Rs.10/- without having been asked for to deposit money in the manner he had deposited. He is further informed that there is no provision in the Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005 to refund fees.
8. In view of the above facts and grounds of the case and the observations made thereon, the First appeal of the appellant in respect of his above mentioned RTI application has been disposed of with the directions to the CPIO, NCCT HQ to furnish a copy of the Order No. A-11011/6/2011-CET dated 27.06.2018 of Ministry of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare free of cost within 15 days."5
In compliance with FAA's order, the CPIO furnished a revised reply to the Appellant on 17.07.2023 by enclosing a copy of Order No. 11-1/2/2022- Per dated 13.06.2023.
CIC/MOCOP/A/2023/624200 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.03.2023 with Respondent no. 2 seeking the following information:
"1. I want to know under RTI Act, 2005, how many temporary/Casual labour/contractual employees have been regularized in compliance of Govt. of India Ministry of Personnel PG & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training instructions No.49014/7/2020-Estt (C) dated 07 October 2020 regarding regularization of qualified workers appointed against sanctioned posts-Uma Devi Judgment-facts/clarification in your department and its training units. Please provide certified copy in this regard.
2. I want to know under RTI Act, 2005 that 'Grievance Redressal Officer of Divyangjan has been appointed in accordance with section-10 Right of Person with Disabilities Rules 2017 and section-23 of Right of Person with Disabilities Act, 2016 in your department or not.
3. Please provide the details of Employees which have been appointed on Contract/Outsource/Casual Labour/Temporary in Group-C and Group-D in your department and its training units in the following table format which is enclosed as Annexure-A
4. Please provide the details of separate 100-point Reservation Roster Registers has been prepared for Person with Disabilities under Right of Person with Disabilities Act, 2016 in your department from 2010 to till date.
5. Please provide the details how many vacancies are vacant and identified in Group-C and Group- D category along with description of Post which is idented for Divyangjan as per Notification dated 04/01/2021 issued from Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment for Divyangjan under Right of Person with Disabilities Act, 2016 in your department and its training units.6
6. Please provide the details of Group-C Employees which have been appointed on back door entry in your department (NCCT) and its training units and till date whose services are temporary but is being given all benefits of Permanent Employment without any instructions Govt. of India and the Applicant wants to know any committee has been constituted to check the irregularity in the said recruitments.
7. Please provide the salary details at present of Temporary Employees whose cases are pending in Hon'ble High Court/s of your department or its training units along with CWP No. and present case status.
8. Please provide the certified copy of seniority list of LDC issued by your department vide letter No. 2-12/2021-Pers dated 09.03.2023.
9. The Applicant wants to know under RTI Act, 2005 that your department whenever has issued any order to Applicant is absolutely 100% reliable or if any violations has made by your department officers, then what is the provision of disciplinary action for that, or any order issued by your department should not be trusted.
10. I want to know under RTI Act, 2005 When will the seniority list of LDC and Group-D be put on the website your department organization i.e NCCT, New Delhi."
The CPIO/ Respondent no. 2 furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 13.04.2023 stating as under:
"1. No such information is available in this office.
2. No separate Grievance Officer has been appointed for persons with disabilities.
3. No such information in the desired format is available in NCCT (HQ).
4. Reservation Roaster Register for all reserved categories including person with disabilities is maintained in NCCT.
5. There is no Group 'D' now. At present no post in Group C vacancy falls for person with disabilities in the Reservation Roaster Register in NCCT.
6 & 7. No such information is available in the NCCT.7
8. The seniority list for LDC is uploaded on the NCCT website i.e., ncct.ac.in.
9. No such information is available in this office.
10. The Seniority List for LDC and MTS is uploaded on the NCCT website i.e., ncct.ac.in. There is no Group 'D' now."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.04.2023. FAA's order, dated 10.05.2023, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
CIC/MOCOP/A/2023/608920 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.11.2022 with Respondent no. 2 seeking the following information:
"1. Please provide the certified copy of the list of Employees for Group C and Group D/causal Labor who are given salary Equal pay for equal work as per instructions for Govt. of India in the following format:
2. Please provide a certified copy of the letter/instructions issued from Ministry of Agriculture/Ministry of Cooperations to NCCT, New Delhi for regularize the services of Employees working on contractual /daily wages/Temporary LDC/ Casual Labour etc. under NCCT or its Training Units who are working before the year 2012 or who has completed 10 years' service in respective post.
3. Please provide the certified copy of salary and allowances like HRA, TA and Annual Increment etc. to Equal Pay and Equal Work Employees which is given in Vamnicom, Pune and provide the status of appointment.
4. Please provide the certified copy of Govt. instructions based on which Equal Pay for Equal Work Employees working Head office, NCCT or its 8 Training Units converted into Outsource (through Contractor) from department role.
5. I want to know under RTI Act, 2005 whether there is any planning of NCCT, Head office to regularize the services of contractual/outsources/daily wages Temporary LDC/Equal Pay for Equal Work Employees in compliance of Govt. letter No.49014/7/2020-Estt (C) dated 07 October 2020.
6. Please provide the certified copy of Internal Committee Proceedings of RICM, Chandigarh dated 11.04.2022 which was constituted vide letter dated 2-11/2021-Pers dated 06.04.2022
7. Please provide the certified copy of the Internal Committee's Recommendations of RICM, Chandigarh which was constituted vide letter dated 2-11/2021-Pers dated 06.04.2022 to examine the cases of temporary employees which was submitted to the Secretary, NCCT, New Delhi.
8. Please provide the comments of Appointing Authorities Secretary, NCCT, New Delhi on the recommendations of the Internal Committee's Recommendations.
9. Please provide the certified copy of the Final Report/decision based on the Internal Committee's Recommendations of RICM, Chandigarh which was constituted vide letter dated 2-11/2021-Pers dated 06.04.2022.
10. Please provide the certified copy of Office Order No. 2-11/2021-Pers dated 23.05.2022.
11. Please provide the information that how many divyangjan has been employed by NCCT or its Training Units in Group-C and Group-D vacancies in compliance with the 4% reservation in each Group-C and Group-D under the Rights of Person with Disabilities Act, 2016."
The CPIO/ Respondent no. 2 furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 13.12.2022 stating as under:
"1. A copy of instructions issued by NCCT is enclosed.
2 & 3. No such information is available in this office.9
4. Copy of letter dated 24.07.2012 received from the Deptt. Of Agriculture and Cooperation is enclosed.
5. This is not covered under the ambit of the RTI Act, 2005.
6 & 7. The matter is under consideration. Hence, copies may not be provided.
8 & 9. No such information is available in this office.
10. Copy of Office Order is enclosed.
11. Recruitment was made in 2017 only when one disabled person was appointed as MTS in NCCT who has since resigned from service on 29.07.2021. No further recruitment has been made in NCCT."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.12.2022. FAA's order dated 24.01.2023 upheld the reply of the CPIO with the following observations:
"....I have investigated appeal preferred by you and find that the information available with the Public Authority was sent to you within the prescribed time limit of one month. Further, I find that the Public Authority has already provided information sought by you and as permissible under RTI Act. There is no special provision for persons with disabilities under the RTI Act; neither any discrimination has been made to you by the Public Authority. Copies of orders left behind inadvertently are enclosed."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent(s): Manish Bhatia, CPIO along with D. N. Sahoo, Consultant present in person.
The consolidated written submission filed by the CPIO prior to the hearing is taken on record.10
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of impugned RTI Applications expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that the reply provided by the CPIO was vague and unsatisfactory. Further, the plea taken by the CPIO regarding non- availability of records is unacceptable as evidence in support of his contention lies with him .
The CPIO also reiterated the contents of his replies and further submitted that whatever information was available in their office has already been parted with the Appellant. Further, the information sought by the Appellant in a particular format are not available in the desired form and collation/ compilation of which would divert the resources of Respondent Public Authority and therefore, can not be provided in view of Section 7(9) of RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset based upon a perusal of facts on records and after hearing submissions of the both the parties , is of the considered view that the Appellant has sought information through instant RTI Applications of such a vague and indeterminate nature merely to pressurize the Respondent public authority into acceding to his request for similar nature of information.
It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability.
The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like 11 confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."(Emphasis Supplied)......."
Nonetheless, the Commission further notes after closely scrutinizing the contents of RTI Applications that replies have been provided by the CPIO in response to indeterminate queries despite the fact that these are outside the ambit of Section 2 (f) of RTI Act as also the factual position of non- availability of records has also been intimated which was appropriate as the said replies are found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant/Complainant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any 12 electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it washeld as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.13
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) In addition to the above, it is also notable that the personal details of the Secretary of NCCT & other employees of NCCT as sought by the Appellant contains the data of personal information of third party, disclosure of which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"....(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the parties is invited towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental 14 and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Further, with regards to the issue flagged by the Appellant challenging the veracity of information furnished by the CPIO is purely a matter of grievance which is outside the mandate of RTI Act. Here, he is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under: 0 "20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", 15 the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) The Appellant is therefore, advised to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future.
In view of the above, no scope for action lies in the matter.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the CPIO is advised to be more cautious in denying information by quoting the appropriate clause of the RTI Act while responding to the RTI Applications in future.
Lastly, in pursuance to clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his latest written submissions free of cost with the Appellant immediately upon receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal (s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स%यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 16