Central Information Commission
Akshay Kumar Malhotra vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 12 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint No. CIC/DOP&T/C/2023/627806+
CIC/DOP&T/A/2023/111703
Akshay Kumar Malhotra ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Office of the Lokpal, ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
Complaint : 07.06.2023 &
RTI : 05.01.2023 FA : 04.02.2023
SA :13.03.2023
CPIO : 01.02.2023 FAO : 03.03.2023 Hearing : 03.12.2024
Note: The instant set of complaint and second appeal have been clubbed for decision
as these relate to the identical subject-matter.
Date of Decision: 12.12.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant/Complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) filed an RTI application dated 05.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "Please inform me on point no. 6 of the Order, on the one side says that, '..directed the CVC to cause an inquiry into the matter and submit a report..' Page 1 of 9 but on the other side says that, '..CVC, vide covering letter dated 15.09.2022, has submitted the report received from the DDA..' So information requested is that, H'ble Lokpal had directed CVC to cause an Inquiry (by themselves i.e. by CVC), whereas, following sentence of Order says that CVC just submitted the report received from DDA, which means Inquiry was conducted by people of DDA and not by CVC. So, please inform or rather confirm that who actually conducted the Inquiry i.e. by people within DDA or people within CVC. In my Complaint I had mentioned specifically that various Deptt within DDA, including Vigilance Deptt of DDA are biased in favor of people in DDA against whom I had made the complaint and I specifically requested that Inquiry be conducted by someone who is not related to DDA. But still if the Inquiry is been done by people within DDA, then it is nothing but a formality completed by DDA, and moreover, when Hon'ble Lokpal directed CVC to cause an Inquiry (by themselves), then how come CVC can outsource to someone else and that too to the accused themselves i.e. to DDA.
So, this Inquiry report, if prepared by people within DDA is flawed one and not in accordance to the directions passed by Lokpal, then how come this flawed Inquiry report can be adopted in passing an Order.
(ii) Please provide me with the certified copies of the Inquiry report vide letter dated 15.09.2022 of CVC, as referred to in the Order, even though the said Inquiry report should have been provided to me or rather should have been served to me mandatorily under Principle of Natural Justice, but which didn't happen. It's so simple that whatever reply is been submitted by accused is accepted and adopted and a flawed Order is passed.
(iii) Please inform me and provide me with the copies of the conclusion report prepared and submitted by CVC to Lokpal.
Page 2 of 9(iv) Please inform me about another confusion within Order itself, as point no. 6 of the Order talks about 'Inquiry Report' which implies 'FINAL Inquiry Report', whereas, point number 8 talks about 'preliminary Inquiry Report dated 15.9.2022' So, please inform me that whether the Inquiry Report dated 15.09.2022 is a 'Preliminary Inquiry Report' or a 'Final Inquiry Report'.
(v) Please provide me with the certified copies of the Final Inquiry report, if the Inquiry Report dated 15.09.2022 is a preliminary Inquiry Report." etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.02.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
As far as information sought vide point no. 2, 3 and 5 is concerned, an additional fee of Rs. 2400/- for providing hard copy is requested, as the information sought is not available in electronic format(For 1200 pages). The point-wise information for the remaining points is as below Point 1 - Under RTI Act 2005, only information can be sought. Interpretation/ explanation of information cannot be sought under the Act. Further, the Order of the Honorable Bench pertaining to complaint no. 3632/2022 has already been forwarded to the complainant which is self-explanatory.
Point 4 - Only one (1) inquiry report dated 15.09.2022 has been received in respect of Complaint no. 3632/2022, etc.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 04.02.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 03.03.2023 stated that:
It is seen that the reply of the CPIO is appropriate, thus, no further action is required. Further, it is reiterated that under the RTI Act the public authorities are not supposed to provide clarifications/interpretation of some order, report, document etc. On the website of Lokpal of India necessary information which may be useful for the common citizen such as Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013, Lokpal Complaint Rules 2020, Guidelines for filing a complaint, Annual Reports Page 3 of 9 etc. are already displayed. It is not feasible to scan and upload every CVC or CBI reports on the website.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint/Second Appeal dated 07.06.2023 & 13.03.2023.
5. The Complainant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Rohit Singh, Section Officer and Shri Parveen Kumar, Section Officer, attended the hearing in-person.
6. The Complainant prima facie raised objections regarding absence of the CPIO or representative(s) of similar ranking as that of a CPIO during the hearing. With respect to the merits of the case, the complainant's broad submissions, as has also been emphasized in his second appeal as well as in the complaint, are extracted below:
" Point no. 1: Its like a match fixing between Lokpal and DDA/CVC, where, whatever reply is been submitted by DDA/CVC is been relied upon by Lokpal and complaint closed unilaterally and that too in violation of Principle of Natural Justice, where not only reply of the defendant is not provided to complainant but also that reply of defendant is believed on by Lokpal and that too without going into reply of defendant, as is confessed by Lokpal in its Decision dated 16.11.2022, where point number 11 on page number 3 of the Lokpal Decision, where it is mentioned that, '....we do not consider it necessary to go into each and every detail.......we find that every aspect of the grievances raised by the complainant has been replied to in a satisfactory manner.' Point Number 2, 3, 5 of RTI Application -
i. No information provided as CPIO asked me to deposit Rs 2400/- for getting 1200 pages of Status report submitted by CVC, which is not in sync with Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005.
ii. ii.Neither did CPIO elaborated nor clarified that whether these 1200 pages, he is talking about in his online reply, also consists of the information, which is been asked by me under point number 3 and 5 of my Page 4 of 9 RTI Application i.e. 3. 'certified copies of the conclusion report prepared and submitted by CVC to Lokpal....' 5. 'certified copies of the Final Inquiry report...' So, CPIO must also provide information on point number 2, 3 and 5 of RTI Application, if it is not covered under 1200 pages, which CPIO is talking about in his online reply to RTI Application.
iii. The information requested by me in my RTI Application is of larger public interest, as it is all about the complaint of Corruption against public servants of DDA, which is related to Corruption activities in maintenance / upkeep of various activities in Public Parks of DDA i.e. Horticulture maintenance of lawns, Security services, Toilet maintenance services etc etc, and hence all such activities nowhere related to me as an individual but as a citizen, because of larger public interest.
iv. I had mentioned in my RTI Application also that I am entitled to get the Status report, at its own and free of cost i.e. without having been asked by me, as I am the complainant and I complained against DDA people, and whatever the reply DDA has given against my Complaint should have been provided to me in normal course and this is what is been called the 'Principle of Natural Justice', where copy of the response to any complaint/case should be provided to complainant also so that s/he could also check that the person ( against whom complaint was made) didn't make any incorrect report and not tried to mislead the bench by making wring and incorrect statements.
v. Moreover, in my RTI Application, I had also mentioned that if Public Authority is comfortable giving information through electronic mode i.e. scanned copy been sent to my email ID, then that is also acceptable to me. But here not only CPIO denying giving the information through electronic mode but also is asking me to deposit Rs 2400/- towards cost of 1200 pages, which otherwise should have been provided to me at its own and without any cost."Page 5 of 9
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the complainant had sought documents which were part of the proceedings before Lokpal, wherein the Lokpal suo motu demanded report/submissions from necessary parties for the effective disposal of the complaint filed before them. Therefore, unlike proceedings before a court of law or judicial authority, it was not mandatory that copies of reports/submissions/written pleadings, were to be served to the opposite party. Therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to deem that the documents i.e. written submissions submitted to the Lokpal, are public records. Moreover, they relied upon their latest written submissions dated 28.11.2024 sent to the Commission, which are extracted below:
"In this regard it is submitted that the appellant Shri Akshay Kumar Malhotra vide his original RTI Application dated 05/01/2023 had sought certain information pertaining to his Complaint No. 3632/2022 filed with Lokpal of India. The CPIO within the specified time limit Le. on 01/02/2023, furnished the pointwise information to the appellant. The CPIO further informed the appellant that the information pertaining to Point No. 2, 3 and 5 was spread over 1200 pages in physical format, therefore the appellant was requested to submit Rs. 2400/- as additional fee for providing the copies of the relevant documents.
Not satisfied with the response, the appellant filed the First Appeal on 04/02/2023. FAA in this matter passed a reasoned Order dated 03/03/2023 in which he concurred with the response provided by the CPIO and further explained the position that the CPIO had appropriately asked for Rs. 2400/- for providing the copies of documents containing 1200 pages.
Now, the appellant has filed the present Second Appeal and the Complaint with CIC in which he has claimed to provide the information free of cost. The appellant has also stated that the information requested in the RTI Application should have been disseminated and put in public domain, by itself by the public authority, but they didn't do it which is a violation of section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 6 of 9
In this regard, it is submitted that the appellant Shri Akshay Kumar Malhotra was duly offered with the available information conditional upon payment of the prescribed fees. It is also to be noted that the relevant information w.r.t. Lokpal of India is already available (suo motu disclosure) on the website of Lokpal of India as per the requirement of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
It is relevant to mention here the appellant had preferred a CIC Second Appeal and Complaint in another similar RTI dated 27.11.2021 wherein the applicant was required to pay Rs. 318/-for information spreading over 159 pages. However, the applicant preferred 1" appeal and 2 appeal on similar fines. The Hon'ble CIC vide Order No. CIC/DOP/T/A/2022/104931 and CIC/DOP&T/C/2022/104932 dated 30/05/2023 had dismissed the Appeal/Complaint and held that the fees sought for by the CPIO is as per the provisions of the Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act read with Rule 4 of the RTI Rules, 2012. A copy of CIC decision dated 30.05.2023 is enclosed for ready reference.
In this regard, it is therefore stated that the CPIO has provided the reply in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and the FAA has also passed an appropriate order in this matter."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent has replied to the appellant/complainant vide letter dated 01.02.2023. It is noted that the complainant has inter alia sought records i.e. copies of reports submitted by CVC to the Lokpal. It is not the case that the respondent denied the said information, however, the then CPIO had demanded the requisite fees for the photocopies of the documents, to be supplied to the complainant. However, the complainant did not pay the requisite fees and insisted that the same be supplied to him, free of cost. The complainant's contention regarding non-supply of the said information before Lokpal is not the issue for consideration before the Commission. However, the issue raised in the matter is regarding disclosure of information by the respondent authority and the propriety in demanding the cost towards supply of documents sought in the RTI application. It is crucial to refer to the provisions concerning Page 7 of 9 payment of fees for providing information under the RTI Rules, 2012, reproduced as under:
"4. Fees for providing information.-Fee for providing information under sub- section (4) of Section 4 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of Section 7 of the Act shall be charged at the following rates, namely:-
(a) rupees two for each page in A-3 or smaller size paper,
(b) actual cost or price of a photocopy in large size paper,
(c) actual cost or price for samples or models,
(d) rupees fifty per diskette or floppy;
(e) price fixed for a publication or rupees two per page of photocopy for extracts from the publication;
(f)no fee for inspection of records for the first hour of inspection and a fee of rupees 5 for each subsequent hour or fraction thereof, and
(g) so much of postal charge involved in supply of information that exceeds fifty rupees."
Further, the Commission also refers to the observations laid down by the Delhi High Court in Registrar of Companies & Ors. Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] in its judgment dated 01.06.2012 that "The Act therefore vests in the public authority the power and the right to prescribe the mode of access to voluntarily disclosed information, i.e. either free or at a prescribed cost / price." Considering, the view taken by the Court with respect to the power and right of CPIO to demand fees for providing information in cases of voluntarily disclosed information, it is noteworthy to interpret that the said stand in law is also applicable to cases wherein information is held by the respondent authority and not available in public domain. Therefore, there appears to be no infirmity with the decision taken by the CPIO in demanding the fees sought in their reply dated 01.02.2023. Accordingly, the appellant is at liberty to collect the information from the CPIO, upon payment of the fees demanded vide letter dated 01.02.2023. 8.1. It is also noted that the appellant in the guise of seeking information, has requested the CPIO to inform or clarify regarding certain confusion apprehended by the appellant. Therefore, no material information having been sought, as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, Page 8 of 9 the Commission finds no scope of further relief to the appellant. The Commission takes note of the complainant's objections regarding absence of CPIO, and cautions the respondent to strictly comply with requirements for attendance laid down in the hearing notice, in future. Accordingly, the appeal [CIC/DOP&T/A/2023/111703] is disposed of.
8.2. Moreover, it is not the case that the CPIO has failed to respond or has denied the information sought in the RTI application. Therefore, there appears to be no mala fide on the part of the CPIO for obstruction of information. Accordingly, the complaint [CIC/DOP&T/C/2023/627806] is found to be bereft of any merit and is closed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 12.12.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Office of the Lokpal, Plot No-6, Vasant Kunj, Institutional Area, Phase-II, New Delhi - 110070
2. Akshay Kumar Malhotra Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)