Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
(Adjunct to Decision No.5478/IC(A)/2010 dated 24/5/2010)
Decision No.5687/IC(A)/2010
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2010/000133
Dated, the 30th July, 2010
Name of the Appellant: Shri. Rafique Ansari
Name of the Public Authority: Damodar Valley Corporation
Decision: i
1. In our Decision Notice No.5478/IC(A)/2010 dated 24/5/2010 the following
observations were made:
"Decision Notice:
7. The appellant re-iterated in pains that had the
respondent/Government not acquired his productive agricultural land of
over 20 acres, he would not have been marginalized to the extent of his
small family falling below the poverty line.
8. The evidence on record show that:
(i) The CPIO has not replied within the stipulated period of 30 days. He
has thus violated section 7(1) of the Act. The CPIO, Sh. A.K.
Sharma replied on 4th November 2009 only after the first appeal
dated 24/10/2009 was submitted to the first appellate authority of the
respondent. And, the CPIO did not provide complete information as
asked for. The deemed PIO, Sh. M. Das has stated that certain
information are available at the headquarters where the CPIO’s office
is located. Yet, the CPIO did not bother to collect and compile the
information from his own office for onward transmission to the
appellant. Rather, he has hastily replied after receipt of the first
appeal petition by the respondent. Thus, the CPIO has neither
replied within the stipulated period of 30 days nor he has made any
i
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi
1
sincere attempts to provide complete and correct information as
asked for by the appellant.
(ii) The Appellate Authority has not passed any order on the appeal
dated 24/10/2009. He seems to have simply advised his CPIO to
reply to the appellant without taking due cognizance of the
inadequacies in the response given by the CPIO. Nor any effort has
been made to provide complete information after obtaining the same
at the Headquarters level, where the offices of the CPIO and the
Appellate Authority are located.
9. Clearly, the CPIO, including the other custodians of information as
well as the Appellate Authority have not acted as per the requirements of
the provisions of the RTI Act, of which they are fully aware. In view of what
the appellant has said about denial of his rights to work and seek
information, it seems that the respondents are surely hiding more than what
they are revealing, without any reasonable cause in order to cover up lack
of accountability towards a physically challenged land oustee, who has
slipped below the defined poverty line due to lackadaisical attitude of the
officials of the respondents. On the present reckoning, it is unthinkable that
an owner and farmer of over 20 acres, would be categorized under BPL. Is
it not the respondent, as an instrument of state, responsible for throwing the
appellant into the quagmire of poverty? More than the Almighty God, we
alone are responsible for making our people’s life miserable. The
appellant’s case is an example of deliberate misdeeds of public action.
10. The CPIO, Sh. A.K. Sharma and the deemed PIO, Sh. M. Das, are
therefore held responsible for denial of information. They are directed to
show cause as to why a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/ (Rupees twenty
five thousand only) each, u/s 20(1) of the Act, should not be imposed on
them for deemed refusal of information without any reasonable cause.
They should submit their explanations at the earliest and also appear for a
personal hearing on July 19, 2010 at 12.30 p.m., failing which penalty
would be imposed on them. The appellant may also be present in the
hearing.
11. The CPIO is also directed to furnish complete information free of
cost as per section 7(6) of the Act, as asked for by the appellant, at the
earliest. Moreover, u/s 4(1)(d) of the Act, every public authority is required
to provide grounds for any administrative or quasi judicial decision to the
affected persons. Accordingly, the respondents should provide the reasons
together with supporting documents, as to why the appellant, a physically
challenged land oustee, could not be provided alternative avenues for
income generation.
2
12. The appellant has indeed suffered all kinds of harassment including
loss of wages in pursuing his RTI application at the level of CPIO and
Appellate Authority and the Commission as well. Had he been provided
complete and correct information as asked for, his oft repeated requests to
the CPIO and the Appellate Authority and attending hearings at the
Commissions level could have been avoided. The respondents have
neither shown any interest in implementation of the provisions of the Act nor
paid due regard to the Right to Information exercised by the citizens like the
appellant, who has not been provided critical information relating to his
rights to work and earn for his sustenance. The Respondent’s Chairman,
DVC, or his nominee is, therefore, directed to show cause as to why an
amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) should not be
awarded to the appellant under section 19 (8)(b) of the Act for all kinds of
detriments suffered by him in seeking information, which are closely related
to violation of human rights such as right to work and to live with dignity.
13. The respondent’s Chairman, DVC or his nominee, should submit
his explanation at the earliest and also appear for a hearing on the date and
time mentioned above, failing which the above amount of compensation
would be awarded to the appellant.
14. Under the scheme of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), all the
Enterprises are expected to design and implement such socio economic
programmes as may be required for empowerment of people who live in the
vicinity of the Companies. Had the respondents done the needful,
particularly to augment opportunities for learning and earning, such cases
as above would not have arisen. And, our people would not have
aggressively agitated against the Government’s action to acquire private
agricultural lands which are the main source of income of farmers. In view
of this, the socio-economic conditions of affected population ought to be
evaluated so as to make positive interventions for their upliftments. The
Respondent’s Chairman, DVC is therefore directed to undertake a
comprehensive assessment of all the cases of re-habilitation arising from
acquisition of lands of the families whose sole source of the earning was
the lands, which are in possession of the respondent now. A report in this
regard should be submitted to the Commission within one month from the
date of receipt of this decision, with a view to examining the quality of public
action in response to the nature of dis-contentments among the people,
who are seeking transparency in the working of the respondent in respect of
CSR activities and related issues.
15. The appeal would be heard again on 19th July 2010 at 12.30 p.m. in
the light of the parties’ responses to the directions passed above.”
3
2. In response to the above show cause notice, the following were present
during the hearing on 19/7/2010:
Appellant : Shri. Rafique Ansari
Respondent : Shri. A.K. Sharma, CPIO & Dy. Secretary,
Shri Mahendra Das, PIO & Jt. D.P.
Shri. S.P. Kunwar, Sr. Addl. Director (Law)
3. During the hearing, Shri. A.K. Sharma, CPIO and Shri. Mahendra Das,
deemed PIO, stated that:
(i) Delay in providing the information was caused due to involvement
of various officials in collection and compilation of documents from
different units of the respondent;
(ii) A lot of time was also wasted in communication with the offices of
the respondent located at Maithon and Kolkota.
(iii) The appellant did not submit his BPL card on time for providing the
information; and
(iv) Because of lack of cooperation from the appellant, his grievances
regarding rehabilitation could not be redressed.
4. The information sought for relate to the grounds for denial of appellant’s
rights to secure an opportunity to work and earn for living, in lieu of
dispossession of his lands for power projects. Neither the respondent’s
rehabilitation schemes nor the programmes under CSR have been able to
address the concerns of the appellant. On such pretext as non-submission of
BPL card or non-cooperation of different parties, the information asked for have
been either suppressed or destroyed by the respondents. The explanations
submitted by the respondents are therefore not acceptable.
5. Therefore, for obstructing the flow of information and for providing
incomplete and misleading information for malafied reasons, penalty u/s 20(1) of
the Act, as under, is imposed on the following officials, who are responsible for
denial of information without any reasonable cause.
i) An amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) is
imposed on Shri. A.K. Sharma, Dy. Secretary & CPIO, who could
not effectively co-ordinate with the concerned officials for providing
complete information within the stipulated period of thirty days. Nor
he could arrange to provide complete information in respect of
various points raised by the appellant.
4
ii) An amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is imposed
on Shri. Mahendra Das, Jt. D.P. & deemed PIO, who did not care
to provide complete information as asked for by the appellant.
Rather, he simply endorsed the documents as obtained from his
office without ascertaining the fulfillment of information needs of the
appellant.
6. The Chairman, DVC, is directed to deduct the above amount of money
from the monthly salary of the above mentioned officials in equal installments of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) with effect from September 2010, and
deposit the same by way of Bankers cheque drawn in favour of PAO, CAT,
payable at New Delhi to the PAO, Central Administrative Tribunal, C-1,
Hutments, Dalhousie Road, New Delhi, under intimation to the Registrar, Central
Information Commission.
7. Shri. S.P. Kunwar, the nominee of the Chairman, DVC, could not explain
as to why the procedure for providing information has not been streamlined to
furnish the information within the stipulated period of 30 days. Due to
lackadaisical attitude of the officials, the appellant has not only wasted time and
resources in accessing information, but also could not obtain complete and
correct information with regard to his rehabilitation, due mainly to suppression of
facts in the matter. For the detriments suffered by the appellant, in terms of time
and resources in pursuing the matter, including mental harassment, an amount of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) is awarded to the appellant,
Shri. Rafique Ansari, u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act, to compensate for all kinds of
detriments suffered by him, as an information seeker from the BPL category, who
has contributed to the establishment of the respondents projects, while he
himself and his family lives the life of destitute.
8. The Chairman, DVC is, therefore, directed to arrange to pay an amount of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation to the
appellant, Shri. Rafique Ansari, through a bank draft on or before 31st August,
2010, failing which penal interest @ 10% per annum would be applicable.
9. Unfortunately, the respondents, as an instrument of State, is responsible
for acquiring the appellant’s lands, worth several lakhs, and dragging him in the
BPL category. Under Section 4(1)(d) of the Act, every public authority is required
to “provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to the
affected persons”. Accordingly, the respondent’s Chairman, DVC, should
indicate as to why the appellant, a land oustee, physically challenged person and
a BPL card holder, cannot be rehabilitated in spite of appellant’s oft-repeated
prayers to fulfill the promises made to him for providing alternate employment
and earning opportunities.
5
10. A compliance report in respect of the above directions should also be
submitted to the Commission, within one month from the date of receipt of this
decision.
11. The appeal is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissionerii
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Deputy Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Shri. Rafique Ansari, Vill: Pakdih, PO: Bena, Dist: Jamtara (Jharkhand)
2. Shri. A.K. Sharma, CPIO, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP
Road, Kolkata – 700 054.
3. Shri. Mahendra Das, Deemed PIO & Jt. Director (Personnel), Damodar
Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, Kolkata – 700 054.
4. The Appellate Authority, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP
Road, Kolkata – 700 054.
5. The Chairman, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road,
Kolkata – 700 054.
ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle
6