Central Information Commission
Chitrangada Choudhury vs Ministry Of Rural Development on 5 June, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000971/SB
Dated 08.09.2016
Appellant : Ms. Chitrangada Choudhury,
A-28, Baramunda HIG,
Bhubaneshwar,
Odisha-751003.
Respondent : The Central Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Rural Development,
Department of Land Resources,
'G' Wing, NBO Building,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
Date of Hearing : 20.06.2016/08.09.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.01.2015
CPIO's reply : 10.03.2015
First Appeal filed on : 17.03.2015
FAA's Order : 10.04.2015
Second appeal filed on : 25.04.2015
ORDER
1. Ms. Chitrangada Choudhury filed an application dated 17.01.2015 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Land Resources (DoLR) seeking photo copies of notings and all correspondence between Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) CIC/KY/A/2015/000971/SB Page 1 and other government and non-government authorities during 2014 relating to
(a) any proposed amendments to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (RFCTLARR), 2013 and (b) ordinance of December 31st , 2014, bringing changes to this Act.
2. Ms. Chitrangada Choudhury filed an appeal dated 09.06.2015 before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO and FAA have not specified any exemption clause nor given a reasoned order for their action of withholding the information under the Act. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought by her free of cost.
Hearing held on 20.06.2016:
3. The appellant Ms. Chitrangada Choudhury attended the hearing through audio conferencing. The respondent was not present despite notice.
4. The appellant submitted that only partial information has been provided and no information relating to notings as sought by the appellant has been provided to her. The appellant further submitted that the CPIO and the FAA have taken a blanket exemption under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act and have not specified the specific clause for seeking exemption from disclosure. The appellant further stated that even the cabinet notes are disclosed once the decision on the same has been taken and in the present case since the ordinance was passed, this implies that decision has been taken on the cabinet note. The appellant further requested the Commission that, since the information was denied deliberately, a penalty should be imposed on the respondent.
Interim Decision:
5. The Commission after hearing the submissions of the appellant and perusing the records, directs the respondent to provide information to the CIC/KY/A/2015/000971/SB Page 2 appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this decision.
6. The Commission, thus, finds that complete information has not been provided by the respondent to the appellant. Therefore, the CPIO is liable for imposition of penalty in terms of provision under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
7. The CPIO, DoLR is hereby directed to submit an explanation both by post and through e-mail at [email protected] before the Commission, on or before - 01.08.2016, explaining why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him.
8. The CPIO, DoLR is further directed to appear before the Commission on 11.08.2016 at 01:15 pm along with a copy of his written explanations.
9. The CPIO is also directed to inform if there is/ are other person(s) responsible for knowingly not providing complete information to the complainant and if so to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission on 11.08.2016 at 01:15 pm along with his/ their written explanations.
10. Copy of the decision be provided to both the parties free of cost.
11. Due to administrative reasons, the hearing was adjourned to 08.09.2016 at 10.30 a.m. Hearing on 08.09.2016:
12. The respondent Shri P.C. Prasad, Dy. Secretary, DoLR was present in person.
CIC/KY/A/2015/000971/SB Page 3
13. The respondent filed a written explanation dated 29.11.2016 to the show cause notice issued against him in the earlier hearing. The respondent submitted that information to the extent possible was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 10.03.2015. The respondent further submitted that additional information was also provided to the appellant in compliance with the FAA's order dated 10.04.2015 vide letter dated 10.04.2015. The respondent also stated that complete information could not be provided to the appellant as after the approval of the Cabinet, RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance 2014 amending the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 was promulgated on 31.12.2014 and subsequently, RFCTLARR (Amendment) Bill 2015 was also introduced in Lok Sabha on 24.02.2015 to replace the Ordinance of 31.12.2014. This Amendment Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on 10.03.2015. However, the Bill could not be taken up for consideration in Rajya Sabha as Rajya Sabha was prorogued on 28.03.2015 and the Bill is still pending in Rajya Sabha. The respondent further stated that with a view to give continuity to the provisions of the said Ordinance and also to expedite the process of land acquisition, it was necessary to repromulgate the Ordinance and get the same replaced by the Replacement Bill in Parliament. In view of this, since the appellant had sought information relating to the Ordinance, complete information could not be provided as the repromulgation of the Ordinance as well as the pendency of the Bill in the Rajya Sabha implied that the matter was not yet finalized. Therefore, the disclosure of the information is exempted under Sections 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
14. The Commission, after hearing the respondent and perusing the records, observes that complete information was not provided to the appellant. However, the same was not provided as the CPIO concerned presumed that since the said Ordinance dated 31.12.2014 is linked to the Amendment Bill which is pending in Rajya Sabha, therefore, information in a connected matter cannot be provided as the same would lead to the breach of Parliament's privilege and hence, exempted under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act. The Commission further observes CIC/KY/A/2015/000971/SB Page 4 that the respondent has also taken the plea of Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act but has overlooked the proviso to Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, which says that information has to be provided once a decision is taken in the matter and the decision in the matter relating to the Ordinance of 31.12.2014 had been taken before its issue (i.e. 31.12.2014) and the RTI application was filed on 17.01.2015.
Thus, the plea of Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act is not available to the respondent as the present case will fall under the proviso to Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act. Further, there was no malafide on the part of the respondent to withhold the information and the same is a case of non-application of mind by the respondent. In view of this, the show cause notice issued against the respondent is hereby dropped.
15. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
16. Copies of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer CIC/KY/A/2015/000971/SB Page 5