Central Information Commission
Mr.S S Bhamra Assistant vs President'S Secretariat on 13 July, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000436 dated 30-3-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri S. S. Bhamra
Respondent: President's Secretariat
Decision announced: 13.7.2010
FACTS
By an application of 11-11-08 Shri S.S. Bhamra, Assistant, (Bills Admn.) Rashtrapati Bhawan applied to the CPIO of the same public authority seeking the following information:
"i) Copy of letter from Department of Personnel, with regard to the confirmation of seniority of Shri Vinod Kumar, UDC, after withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement, as mentioned against S. No. 3 of the enclosed list issued by Administration Section, President's Secretariat.
ii) Copy of complete file notings regarding processing of reinstatement case of Shri Vinod Kumar, UDC, after withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement after a gap of almost 20 months.
iii) Copy of complete file notings regarding processing of my representation dated 22.7.2008, addressed to Dr. Christy Fernandez, Secretary to the President."
To this Shri S.S. Bhamra received a response dated 17-11-08 from CPIO, Shri Faiz Ahmad Kidwai, endorsing a copy of his letter addressed to Shri Vinod Kumar, Assistant also in the President's Secretariat as third party requesting him to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed. Subsequently, in his letter of 11-12-08 CPIO Shri Faiz Ahmed Kidwai has informed Shri Bhamra as follows:
"(i) The file containing copy of desired information on point no. (i) is under submission. As and when it return, the desired information will be provided.
(ii) & (iii) As regards providing the file notings, Department of Personnel & Pensions has clarified in their ID Note No. 10.1.2008-IR dated 4th August 2008(copy enclosed) that file noting does not form the part of information under the RTI Act that it is not to be disclosed. However, the Central Information Commission, in several cases, has held that the file noting is an integral part of a file and should be disclosed. The matter is under examination.
Till than, applications seeking copies of the file noting 1 may be disposed of as per clarification given on the website (of DoPT). If the CIC, in any particular case, passes order to disclose the file noting, decision may be taken keeping in view the various provisions of the Act. In view of the above clarification, the desired information on points (ii) & (iii) may not be provided and hence rejected under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Upon this Shri Bhamra moved an appeal before Ms. Rasika Chaube, Appellate Authority pleading with regard to the response received as follows:
"Stand: According to section 7 (1) of RTI Act, 2005 the requested information may be provided as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request."
"Stand: Shri Wajahat Habibullah, Chief Information Commissioner while disposing appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00830 & 889 (S.S. Bhamra vs. President's Secretariat) on 19.3.2007, had ordered that file noting fall squarely within the definition of information under the RTI Act and should be provided, when requested, if not excluded from disclosure u/s 8 (1) or section 24. It is pertinent to mention that Central Information Commissioner had summoned President's Secretariat and DoPT officials under sections 176,177,186,187,188 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, apart from rendering themselves liable for penalty under the RTI Act for disobeying the orders of the Commission for non-disclosure of file notings. To this effect ,recently in leading News Paper, 'The Hindustan Times' dated29.12.2008, there was a news item which itself vindicate my stand that not giving the file notings is illegal as per the views of Chief Information Commissioner. Copy of the clippings of the said news item is enclosed for your ready reference."
Upon this Ms. Rasika Chaube in her order of 11-2-09 has ordered as follows:
"As per the RTI Act, 2005 information which is available and which can be provided should be given within 30 days. Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 is relevant in this regard. As regards the issue at point numbers 2 and 3, it is understood that the CPIO after seeking due clarification has taken the view that since the website of the DOPT is still indicating that file notings do not come under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005, the file notings need not be provided. In this regard it is stated that since the DOPT is the nodal ministry for implementation of RTI Act, 2005, therefore, the view taken by the CPIO is in order."2
This has brought Shri S.S. Bhamra to his second appeal before us praying as follows:
"Keeping in view of stand taken on my first appeal dated
2.1.2009 by the appellate authority, President's Secretariat, New Delhi, which are not acceptable under the RTI Act, 2005, you are requested to kindly give necessary direction to CPIO, President's Secretariat to do the needful in this regard."
The appeal was scheduled for hearing on 8th July, 2010.In the meantime we have received a petition of 15-6-2010 from appellant Shri S.S. Bhamra submitting as follows:
"Since the concerned authorities took too much time to supply the requisite information asked in my RTI application dated 11.11.2008 and CIC has also listed my case for hearing after a huge gap of time ,resulting in the retirement of the concerned official from the service after taking UNDUE promotions. Therefore, I am no more interested in pleading this case further. "
At the same time in his letter of September, 2009 CPIO Shri Faiz Ahmed Kidwai has supplied the following information to Shri S.S. Bhamra:
"1. A photocopy of letter from DoPT with regard to the confirmation of seniority of Shri Vinod Kumar, UDC, after withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement is enclosed herewith (copy enclosed).
2. Copies of notings regarding processing of reinstatement case of Shri Vinod Kumar, Assistant and the then UDC, after withdrawal of notice of voluntary retirement are also enclosed herewith (copy enclosed).
3. Copy of file notings regarding processing of your representation dated 22.7.2008 addressed to Dr. Christy Fernandez, Secretary to the President are also enclosed herewith (copy enclosed).
Upon this in his letter of 15-6-2010 Shri Bhamra has submitted as below:
"In this connect ion, I would like to state that the information asked in my RTI Application dated 11.11.2008 had been supplied to me by Shri Faiz Ahmad Kidwai, CPIO, President's Secretariat, RTI Section, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi- 110004 vide letter No. 966/RTI/11/09 dated September, 2009 (photocopy enclosed)."
DECISION NOTICE 3 With the information sought by appellant Shri S.S. Bhamra having already been supplied as acknowledged by him in his letter of 15-6-2010 and in appellant's view no further purpose will be served in pursuing this matter we have no objection to the withdrawal of this appeal by appellant Shri S.S. Bhamra. Being satisfied, we accept the plea of appellant Shri S.S. Bhamra. This appeal is withdrawn and therefore closed.
Announced on this the thirteenth day of July 2010 in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 13-7-2010 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 13-7-2010 4