Details of a Resident including his date of birth with proof; the name of his School along with mark sheets of class 10th and 12th; the date of his joining and other issues related thereto - CIC: No further intervention is required in the matter
7 Jun, 2019O R D E R
RTI - I & II File No. (s) CIC/AIIMS/A/2017/172487-BJ + CIC/AIIMS/A/2017/170694-BJ FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 31 points regarding the personal details of one Dr. Ankita Sethi Khurana, Sr. Resident, OBS and Gyne including her date of birth with proof; name of School along with her marksheets of class 10th and 12th; date of her joining in the Respondent Public Authority with conditions; copy of her appointment letter and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 27.07.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant wherein for points 01 to 05, 07 to 09, 24 & 28 disclosure of information was denied under Section 8 (1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 11.09.2017, upheld the CPIO’s response.
RTI - III File No. CIC/AIIMS/A/2017/171088-BJ
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application (complete copy not on the record of the Commission) sought information on 31 points regarding the personal details of one Dr. Ankit Khurana, Sr. Resident Orthopedics including his date of birth with proof; the name of his School along with mark sheets of class 10th and 12th; the date of his joining in the Respondent Public Authority with conditions; copy of his appointment letter and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 27.07.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant wherein for points 01 to 05, 07 to 09, 24 & 28 disclosure of information was denied under Section 8 (1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 11.09.2017, upheld the CPIO’s response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Kushal Kumar, Admn. Officer and Mr. Vipin Ch. Bhatt, DEO;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing.
The Respondent drew the attention of the Commission to its decision in File No. (s) CIC/DDATY/A/2017/179914; CIC/NDMCE/A/2017/173745; CIC/AIIMS/A/2017/172362 dated 25.05.2018 and stated that this matter had already been decided by the Commission. Furthermore, it was reiterated that the CPIO / FAA had replied appropriately. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent, AIIMS (Academic Section) (in Appeal No. CIC/AIIMS/A/2017/170694) dated 29.01.2019 wherein the reply of the CPIO/FAA dated 27.07.2017/11.09.2017 was reiterated. In Appeal No (s) CIC/AIIMS/A/2017/171088-BJ and CIC/AIIMS/A/2017/172487-BJ, being similar queries, the replies of the CPIO / FAA were already on record.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.”
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
“(j) right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........”
In this context a reference was made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... “It is also 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) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; 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.”
Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. “....Under the RTI Act “information” is defined under Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; which provides: “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.” This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed.”
7. “....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the “public authority” under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him.”
As regards the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with regard to the aforementioned decision, the Commission observed that re-visiting the said orders would amount to reviewing the earlier decision of the Commission which was not envisaged within the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. In this context, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of DDA vs. CIC and Anr WP (C) 12714/2009 Decided On: 21.05.2010 could be cited wherein it had been held as under:
“35. Yet another instance of the complete transgression of the statutory powers is to be found in Regulation 23. The said regulation, inter alia, provides that an appellant or a complainant or a respondent may, notwithstanding that the decision or order of the Commission is final, make an application to the Chief Information Commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of a decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request. It further seeks to empower the Chief Information Commissioner, to consider and decide such a request as he thinks fit. Neither the RTI Act nor the rules framed thereunder grant the power of review to the Central Information Commission or the Chief Information Commissioner. Once the statute does not provide for the power of review, the Chief Information Commissioner cannot, without any authority of law, assume the power of review or even of a special leave to appeal. Clearly, the said regulation is beyond the contemplation of the Act. Such a regulation is ultra vires the provisions of the Act”
Furthermore, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Suhas Chakma vs. Union of India and Another W.P.(C) 5086/2010( date of decision: November 18, 2011 had also held as under:
“It is well settled that unless the power of review is vested statutorily, the Court/ authority has no inherent power of review. See Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others v. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji,(1971)3SCC844.
Regulation 23 of The Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007, as amended vide notification No.CIC/Legal/2007/006 dated 20.10.2008 further exemplifies the position. Prior to this amendment, the aforesaid Regulation 23 read as follows:-
(1) A decision or an order once pronounced by the Commission shall be final.
(2) An appellant or a complainant or a respondent may, however, make an application to the Chief Information Commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of a decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request.
(3) The Chief Information Commissioner, on receipt of such a request, may consider and decide the matter as he thinks fit.(emphasis supplied)
After the said aforesaid amendment carried out in the year 2008, Regulation 23 of the aforesaid Regulations now read as follows:-
A decision or an order once pronounced by the Commission shall be final. It is, therefore, even more clear that by amendment, the legislature has specifically withdrawn the power of review which earlier vested in the CIC.”
A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Aseem Takyar vs. CIC and Anr, W.P.(C) 6699/2013 dated 11.04.2017. Moreover, the Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
“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. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions.”
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 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 forum. 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.”
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had 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.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and in the light of earlier decisions of the Commission, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta v. CPIO, Academic Section, All India Institute of Medical Sciences in Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/AIIMS/A/2017/170694-BJ CIC/AIIMS/A/2017/171088-BJ CIC/AIIMS/A/2017/172487-BJ, Date of Decision: 08.02.2019