Central Information Commission
Mahesh Kumar Mittal vs Nhpc Ltd. on 8 September, 2022
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/NHPCL/A/2022/605371 +
CIC/NHPCL/A/2022/621752
CIC/NHPCL/A/2022/621623
Mahesh Kumar Mittal ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
General Manager (Human
Resource), NHPC Ltd., RTI
Cell, Sector- 33,
Faridabad-121003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07/09/2022
Date of Decision : 07/09/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note- The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for the sake
of brevity and decision as these are based on similar nature of information
sought.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application (s) filed on : 21/12/2021, 26/01/2022 & 04/02/2022
CPIO replied on : 31/12/2021, 22/02/2022 & 03/03/2022
First appeal (s) filed on : 03/01/2022, 02/03/2022 & 07/03/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 19/01/2022, 10/03/2022 & 25/03/2022
2nd Appeal (s)/Complaint dated : NIL
1
CIC/NHPCL/A/2022/605371
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 21.12.2021 seeking the following information:
1. "Copy of sanction order/letter for the self- lease allowed to Shri ABL Srivastava, Ex- Director Finance, NHPC Ltd.
2. Copy of sanction order/letter for the self- lease allowed to Shri SK Garg, Ex- CMD, NHPC Ltd.
3. Copy of the complete Note sheets wherein the issue regarding Public Grievance lodged vide No. MPOWR/E/2021/00715 on Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System Portal was dealt including disposal & approval of the Competent Authority.
4. Copy of the complete Note sheets wherein the issue relating to Appeal filed on Public Grievance lodged on Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System Portal on the grievance referred at Sr. No. 3 above was dealt including disposal & approval of the Competent Authority."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 31.12.2021 stating as follows:-
"......Point No.1 & 2 of RTI Application No.E-00314/2021 of Shri Mahesh Kumar Mittal has been observed and under Section 8(1)(J) to the Right to Information Act-2005 information / documents may not be provided.
It is also pertinent to mention that all the information sought by Shri Mahesh Kumar Mittal related with the same nature as per above IOM No. NH/CO/Human Resource/2021/4065 dated 22.12.2021 may be dealt under Section 8(1) (J) to the Right to Information Act-2005. Point No. 3 & 4 do not pertain to EMS Division."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.01.2022. FAA's order dated 19.01.2022 stated that information has already furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 31.12.2021.
2CIC/NHPCL/A/2022/621752 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 26.01.2022 seeking the following information:
(a) copy of note sheets and documents of the file wherein the case for sanction or rejection of my self-lease was dealt from very beginning till now (upto 25.01.2022).
(b) copy of note sheets and documents wherein my representations and grievance relating to denial of self-lease were dealt/processed in NHPC including the copy of note sheets containing the recommendations or approval of CMD, NHPC or any other authority of NHPC.
(c) Copy of the report/correspondence sent to the Ministry of Power, Government of India in the above matter.
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 22.02.2022 stating as follows:-
"......Para (a) (b) :- Copy attached as per Annexure "A".
Para (c):- Copy of the report/correspondence is lying with Ministry of Power Government of India and therefore, it does not pertain to EMS Division, Corporate Office.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.03.2022. FAA's order dated 10.03.2022 stated that the information has already been furnished by the CPIO to the appellant vide letter dated 08.03.2022.
CIC/NHPCL/A/2022/621623 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 04.02.2022 seeking the following information:
My Performance related Pay (PRP) for FY 2019-20 has been paid by NHPC on 28.01.2022. In this connection please provide the following information:
1. Copy of Note sheets wherein the case relating to payment of PRP as above was processed and dealt in NHPC till its payment or subsequently till the filing of this RTI Application.3
2. Copy of internal correspondence exchanged between HR Department and Finance Department or any other Department in the above matter of payment of PRP.
3. Copy of any correspondence exchanged between Ministry of Power and NHPC concerning to the communication of APAR Grading/Rating for FY 2019- 20 and PRP related matter of mine.
4. Date of Payment of PRP to other Board Members/Directors of NHPC for FY 2019-20 and date of receipt of their APAR Grading/Rating by NHPC.
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 03.03.2022 stating as follows:-
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.03.2022. FAA's order dated 25.03.2022 stated that the information has already been furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 03.03.2022. Further, FAA annexed 6 pages of enclosures for appellant's information.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal (s).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: R T Nathan, General Manager (HR) & CPIO along with Sudhanshu Kumar Mohapatra, SM (HR) & Deemed PIO and Ramesh Kumar Mittal, SM (Civil) present in person.
In case no. CIC/NHPCL/A/2022/605371 & CIC/NHPCL/A/2022/621752 -
The Appellant at the outset while narrating the factual background of his case submitted that he superannuated as Director, Finance from NHPC Ltd. and that after his retirement as per the norms he was entitled for a self-lease for a period of four months; however, due to some uncomfortable situation on certain 4 technical issues during his tenure, his request for self lease was not acceded to by the Management of the Organisation which led him to the filing of instant RTI Application. However, he is aggrieved by the fact that the factual position regarding non-maintenance of any note sheet in processing of his request/ representation was not intimated to him initially against points no. 3 & 4 and that he has been informed now after a belated stage that there are no such notings. In this regard, he prayed the Commission to award him compensation for the mental agony faced by him and also requested that the CPIO should be penalized for such faults.
The CPIO relied on his written submission dated 02.09.2022 and submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant earlier and also upon receipt of hearing notice, a revised reply along with factual position regarding non-availability of any note sheet in response to point 3 & 4 has been intimated to him now. No additional information is left at their end. However, to facilitate due assistance to the Appellant, he volunteered to offer inspection of the relevant records to the Appellant. In response to it, the Appellant expressed his willingness to avail the opportunity in the next week of September, 2022.
In case no. CIC/NHPCL/A/2022/621623 -
The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that although the information against point no. 4 was initially denied under the garb of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act; however, it has since been furnished to him now. He further harped on the delay aspect so caused by the CPIO in providing relevant information at point no. 4 which ought to have been provided to him earlier within the stipulated time frame as envisaged under the RTI Act. Further, he while narrating his grievance regarding delay in payment of his Performance related Pay (PRP) for the year 2019-20 submitted that the release of his PRP was delayed while other officers had received it much earlier and therefore, he had sought the payment details of these officers.
The CPIO submitted that the relevant available information has since been provided to the Appellant upon receipt of the hearing notice.In fact, the Commission cautioned the CPIO that names of the other third parties were not mandated to be disclosed to the Appellant.
Decision:5
In case no. CIC/NHPCL/A/2022/605371 & CIC/NHPCL/A/2022/621752 -
The Commission observes from a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties that it is an admitted fact by the Appellant himself that he was in receipt of desired information, however he is aggrieved by the factum of delay caused by the CPIO in providing the relevant information at this belated stage which ought to have been provided by the CPIO at the first instance in the spirit of RTI Act. In response to it, the CPIO tendered his unconditional apologies and explained that there was no malafide intention to obstruct the information from the Appellant, rather upon receipt of hearing notice the CPIO with his best possible efforts tried to explore the possibility of disclosing additional information to the Appellant.
Thus, the Commission rejects the prayer of the Appellant for awarding any compensation and is not inclined to initiate any penal action against the CPIO for want of malafide on their part. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
"61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
In case no. CIC/NHPCL/A/2022/621623 -
In the instant matter, the Commission observes from a perusal of records that the core contention raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeal was initial denial of information by the CPIO against point no. 4 of RTI Application. In this regard, the Commission observes from a close scrutiny of the contents of RTI Application that blanket denial of information by the CPIO in response to point no. 4 under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act was inappropriate as it can be gathered from the nature of 6 information sought that the Appellant sought for "Date of Payment of PRP to other Board Members/Directors of NHPC for FY 2019-20 and date of receipt of their APAR Grading/Rating by NHPC" and not their personal details. In this regard, the CPIO by applying his mind should have intimated the relevant dates to the Appellant by masking the personal details of Board Members/Director in consonance with Section 10 of RTI Act. In this regard, the CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence in future and avoid denying the information mindlessly by invoking exemption clauses of RTI Act in response to RTI Applications in future.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission further observes that now upon receipt of hearing notice and ignoring the aforesaid aspect the CPIO has erred in share the names/designation of the concerned officers along with the dates in response to point no. 4 of RTI Application without seeking their consent under Section 11 of RTI Act. In this regard, the CPIO is strictly cautioned to follow due process of law before parting with any personal information of third parties which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. His attention is also drawn towards a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 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..."7
Further, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding non-acceding of his request by the Respondent organization is purely a matter of grievance which is not amenable under the RTI Act. In this regard, 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 concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) However, in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to offer inspection of the relevant available records related to the 8 instant RTI Applications to the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time preferably on 12th September, 2022 as discussed during the hearing. The intimation of the date & time of inspection will be provided to the Appellant telephonically and in writing by the CPIO. Copy of documents, as identified and desired by the Appellant shall be provided free of cost upto 50 pages and thereafter upon receipt of RTI fees as per RTI Rules, 2012 be provided by the CPIO.
The CPIO is also directed to ensure that due assistance is provided to the Appellant during the inspection in accessing and identifying the records. The said direction should be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect should be sent to the Commission by the CPIO incorporating the details of the records provided for the inspection and copies thereof, immediately thereafter.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 9