CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi-110066
Delhi-110066
File No. CIC/DS/A/2010/000332/LS
APPELLANT Sh. Dharam Raj
PUBLIC AUTHORITY CSIR, M/o Science & Technology
DATE OF HEARING 1.11.2010
DATE OF DECISION 1.11.2010
PUBLIC AUTHORITY CSIR, M/o Science & Technology
DATE OF HEARING 1.11.2010
DATE OF DECISION 1.11.2010
Facts :-
Heard today dated 1.11.2010. Appellant present. CSIR is represented by Dr. D.S. Bedi, PIO and Ms. Valsala Kutty, Consultant, RTI.
2. The matter, in short, is that a fire broke out on 23.7.2009 at the Headquarters of CSIR located at 2, Rafi Marg, New Delhi, in which, unfortunately, three employees lost their lives. The appellant is a Section Officer in CSIR. He had filed an RTI application dated 25.8.2009 seeking information on 16 paras regarding the security system in the CSIR Headquarters and the matters related there-with. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 25.09.2009 wherein information on certain paras was supplied to the appellant but it was held back in respect of certain other paras. On appeal, interestingly, the first Appellate Authority took a totally contrary view and came to the conclusion that the Public Authority was not obliged to provide the requested information. His order is extracted below:-
“I have gone through your original application wherein you have sought information on a number of issues. In this connection, I would like to bring to your notice the judgments of the CIC in the case of Dr. D.V. Rao Vs APIO, Department of Legal Affairs, New Delhi and in the case of Shri P.L. Sanyal Vs Sh. Amit Jha, CPIO and Sh. Naved Masood,
Appellate Authority, Deptt. of Agriculture & Cooperation, New Delhi. You will note that the CIC has clearly taken the stand in their cases that “the petitioner’s entitlement to information is only in respect of categories of information mentioned in Section 2(f). It is not open to an appellant to ask, in the guise of seeking information, questions to the Public
authorities about the nature and quality of their actions. The RTI Act does not cast on the Public Authority the obligation to answer queries.”
2. In my opinion the queries made by you are similar in nature and as such the Public Authority is not obliged to provide you with the information sought.
3. However, in case you are not satisfied with above decision, you may file a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act-2005 with Central Information Commission within 90 days from the receipt of this decision. The address of CIC is as under.”
Heard today dated 1.11.2010. Appellant present. CSIR is represented by Dr. D.S. Bedi, PIO and Ms. Valsala Kutty, Consultant, RTI.
2. The matter, in short, is that a fire broke out on 23.7.2009 at the Headquarters of CSIR located at 2, Rafi Marg, New Delhi, in which, unfortunately, three employees lost their lives. The appellant is a Section Officer in CSIR. He had filed an RTI application dated 25.8.2009 seeking information on 16 paras regarding the security system in the CSIR Headquarters and the matters related there-with. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 25.09.2009 wherein information on certain paras was supplied to the appellant but it was held back in respect of certain other paras. On appeal, interestingly, the first Appellate Authority took a totally contrary view and came to the conclusion that the Public Authority was not obliged to provide the requested information. His order is extracted below:-
“I have gone through your original application wherein you have sought information on a number of issues. In this connection, I would like to bring to your notice the judgments of the CIC in the case of Dr. D.V. Rao Vs APIO, Department of Legal Affairs, New Delhi and in the case of Shri P.L. Sanyal Vs Sh. Amit Jha, CPIO and Sh. Naved Masood,
Appellate Authority, Deptt. of Agriculture & Cooperation, New Delhi. You will note that the CIC has clearly taken the stand in their cases that “the petitioner’s entitlement to information is only in respect of categories of information mentioned in Section 2(f). It is not open to an appellant to ask, in the guise of seeking information, questions to the Public
authorities about the nature and quality of their actions. The RTI Act does not cast on the Public Authority the obligation to answer queries.”
2. In my opinion the queries made by you are similar in nature and as such the Public Authority is not obliged to provide you with the information sought.
3. However, in case you are not satisfied with above decision, you may file a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act-2005 with Central Information Commission within 90 days from the receipt of this decision. The address of CIC is as under.”
In other words, the Appellate Authority has set aside the order of CPIO and put a blanket ban on disclosure of any information.
3. Hence, the present appeal.
4. I have heard the appellant. He is not satisfied with the information provided to him in para No.1. He also protests against non-supply of copy of the report of the Fact Finding Committee constituted by the competent authority. It is his submission that he is seeking this information in the larger public interest.
5. I have perused the RTI application and the response of CPIO in respect of each para. I have also heard Ms Valsala Kutty when she submits that information in respect of certain paras was not provided to the appellant as the queries were starting with words like why, what, when etc. On a thoughtful consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the appellant has raised very pertinent queries about the security set up in CSIR Headquarters as also about the matters relating to the fire incident. His queries do, indeed, fall in the ambit of section 2(f) of the RTI Act and, therefore, he is entitled to parawise information
in respect thereof. In view of the above discussion, it is ordered that the appellant may be provided information in regard to para 01 limited to the number of security personnel deployed on security duty. Importantly, he may be provided a copy of the report of the Fact Finding Committee headed by Dr. S.K. Joshi, former Director General, CSIR. Further, accurate parawise information also may be provided to him regarding paras 06 to 12 and 14 to 16 of the RTI application.
6. Before parting with this matter, we would like to observe that total denial of information by the Appellate Authority, relying on the decision dated 21.4.2006 of this Commission in File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/000045 is not based on correct appreciation of law. It needs to be underlined that RTI Act aims at setting out a practical regime of Right to Information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every Public Authority. The view taken by the Appellate Authority goes against the very spirit of the RTI Act and, therefore, is not sustainable. To illustrate, how can it be denied by the public authority that a Fact Finding Committee was constituted by the competent authority and that it submitted a report and so on. The CPIO and AA are advised to decide the cases in the true spirit of the RTI Act in future.
5. The order of the Commission may be complied with in 03 weeks time.
Sd/-3. Hence, the present appeal.
4. I have heard the appellant. He is not satisfied with the information provided to him in para No.1. He also protests against non-supply of copy of the report of the Fact Finding Committee constituted by the competent authority. It is his submission that he is seeking this information in the larger public interest.
5. I have perused the RTI application and the response of CPIO in respect of each para. I have also heard Ms Valsala Kutty when she submits that information in respect of certain paras was not provided to the appellant as the queries were starting with words like why, what, when etc. On a thoughtful consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the appellant has raised very pertinent queries about the security set up in CSIR Headquarters as also about the matters relating to the fire incident. His queries do, indeed, fall in the ambit of section 2(f) of the RTI Act and, therefore, he is entitled to parawise information
in respect thereof. In view of the above discussion, it is ordered that the appellant may be provided information in regard to para 01 limited to the number of security personnel deployed on security duty. Importantly, he may be provided a copy of the report of the Fact Finding Committee headed by Dr. S.K. Joshi, former Director General, CSIR. Further, accurate parawise information also may be provided to him regarding paras 06 to 12 and 14 to 16 of the RTI application.
6. Before parting with this matter, we would like to observe that total denial of information by the Appellate Authority, relying on the decision dated 21.4.2006 of this Commission in File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/000045 is not based on correct appreciation of law. It needs to be underlined that RTI Act aims at setting out a practical regime of Right to Information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every Public Authority. The view taken by the Appellate Authority goes against the very spirit of the RTI Act and, therefore, is not sustainable. To illustrate, how can it be denied by the public authority that a Fact Finding Committee was constituted by the competent authority and that it submitted a report and so on. The CPIO and AA are advised to decide the cases in the true spirit of the RTI Act in future.
5. The order of the Commission may be complied with in 03 weeks time.
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
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.
( K.L. Das )
Assistant Registrar
No comments:
Post a Comment