Central Information Commission
Tuliya Devi vs Damodar Valley Corporation on 7 July, 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/DVCOR/A/2022/149754
Tuliya Devi ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION,
Chandrapura Thermal Power
Station, RTI Cell, Chandrapura,
Bokaro, Jharkhand-825303 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/07/2023
Date of Decision : 06/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04/07/2022
CPIO replied on : 20/07/2022
First appeal filed on : 09/08/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 30/09/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 15/10/2022
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.07.2022 seeking the following information:2
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 20.07.2022 stating as under:
1. "As stated below.
2. That his first wife Saraswati Devi died on 20.03.2008 and then Nomination form duly filled up by Late Chhote lal Manjhi during his service period in favour of smt. Satiya Devi.
3. Exempted under section 8(1) (e) & 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
4. As stated under Sl. No. (3).
5. As stated under Sl. No. (4).
6. Aadhar Card, Pan Card, Permanent Address and as per records available in SB.
7. No.
8. The act by DVC in the matter is in line with GOI rules & Regulation.
9. As per GOI, Rules & Regulation."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.08.2022. FAA's order dated 30.09.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following lines -
3Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Ajay Kumar Singh, Manager & CPIO present through video- conference.
The Appellant while inviting attention of the bench towards the factual background of the matter as quoted above simply asked the Commission to intervene in providing her due assistance in getting her the entitled claim/ share in the property / funds of her late father.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submissions dated 04.07.2023, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below in verbatim -
"...I. A RTI application dtd.04.07.2022 was submitted by appellant Tuliya Devi for seeking information on Point No.01 to 09 which was received on 06.07.2022 through post. Accordingly, the same was sent to deemed CPIO u/s 5(4&5) of the Rn Act, 2005 vide our letter No.CT/CE/PL-54(RTI)64 dtd.06.07.2022 for obtaining desired information of an appellant Tuliya Devi. (Copy enclosed) 4
2. Subsequently, a pointwise reply from deemed CPIO was obtained by the undersigned vide No.CT/CFJPEN-MISC/535 dtd.20.07.2022 and accordingly was disposed of from our end vide No.CPCE/PL-54(RTI)/69 dtd.20.07.2022.
3. Further, the appellant had made an appeal before FAA, DVC on 09.08.2022 and the FAA, DVC after careful consideration of all facts within the purview of Rn Act, 2005; accordingly. a decision was passed by the FAA, DVC on 30.09.2022 vide No.PL- AAJRTI Appeal(Tuliya Devi)/2022/Nil AA-Decision(Tuliya Dcvi)/2022/ NiV354 dtd.30.09.2022 and with the above observation the first appeal before FAA, DVC stands disposed of. (Copy enclosed)
4. In this connection, it may kindly note that all facts & findings have been taken from official records of Late Chotelal Manjhi. Copy of death certificate of first wife & nomination of pension/GPF in name of Satiya Devi is enclosed for your kind reference..."
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the core issue raised in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se as much as it is about redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding her share for legal claim in her late father's property and seeking clarifications from the CPIO in this regard through impugned RTI Applications.
From the standpoint of RTI Act, the replies of the CPIO are in spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
For better understating of the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant 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. Her attention is also 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 was held 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 5 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) As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of 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 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the 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:
"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", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties 6 concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the above, no relief can be granted in the matter.
However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of Appellant and advises her to pursue the matter through proper channel.
The appeal is 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 / 7