Central Information Commission
Room No. 5, Club Building, Near Post Office
Old J.N.U. Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel No: 26161997
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2010/000255
Name of the Appellant : Shri Dilip Kumar Roy
(The Appellant was Present).
Name of the Public Authority : Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation,
New Delhi.
Represented by: Shri Sanjeev Chopra,
Joint Secretary, Shri Om Prakash,
Addl. Comm., and Shri P.K. Swain,
Director (Mktg.).
The matter was heard on : 13.7.2010. (The matter is reserved for
order).
ORDER
Shri Dilip Kumar Roy, the Appellant filed an application dated 26.10.2009,
seeking information under the RTI Act on 38 points from the CPIO/Ministry of
Agriculture and Cooperation. Shri L. Shivarama Reddy, Deputy Commissioner
(Hort.)/CPIO vide his letter dated 25.11.2009 provided pointwise reply to points
No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13,14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 25, 28, 39 of the RTI Application to
the Appellant and the remaining points were transferred u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act
to different CPIOs. Point No.5 was transferred to CPIO Directorate of
Economics and Statistics, point Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 16 were transferred to the
CPIO, Director (Marketing Division), (DAC), point Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 were transferred to CPIO, Additional Commissioner
(Horticulture) (DAC), point Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 were transferred to CPIO,
Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, point Nos. 37 & 38 were
transferred to the State Government of Kerala. The Director/CPIO/Ministry of
Agriculture and Cooperation replied to the Appellant vide his letter dated
7.12.2009. Aggrieved with the response of various Respondents, the Appellant
filed first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Shri Atanu
Purkayastha, Joint Secretary & Mission Director (Hort)/FAA, who vide his reply
dated 19.3.2010 held as follows:
“The CPIO(s) have made sincere efforts to provide the information within
the stipulated time period. However:
(i) For points no.8, 9, 10, 11, 16 and 18 the concerned CPIO (Marketing)
has informed that the information was provided to you vide letter dated
8.12.2009, which has again been sent to you on 9.3.2010.
(ii) For points No. 1 2, 3, 4 & 15, the CPIO (Hort) is directed to provide you
additional information.
(iii) For point no.5, you may seek the information from the Directorate of
Economic and Statistics.
(iv) For points No.36, 37 and 38, you may seek the information from
KSHPDC.”
The FAA has also held that Appellant is seeking interpretations/
inferences/ explanations related to government policies, which are not covered
under RTI Act, 2005.
Not satisfied with the reply of the FAA, the Appellant has filed the present
appeal before the Commission in which he pleads that replies from most CPIOs
have either not been furnished and those that have been furnished are
incomplete, incorrect and misleading and sent after the statutory time limit. The
Appellant submits that the FAA has directed the Appellant to obtain the
information independently from different CPIOs, thus unilaterally absolving the
CPIO from his legal obligation u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act and facilitate information to
the RTI application. The Appellant, therefore pleads that NHM, the Public
Authority and FAA and Joint Secretary (NHM) may provide complete and correct
information to the Appellant and that they may be asked to comply with the
requirement of facilitating and organizing the inspection of documents/papers of
not only National Horticulture Mission but also the other Public Authorities.
In a written statement, during the hearing, Shri Sanjiv Chopra, Joint
Secretary (NHM) submits that the Appellant is an exemployee of the Ministry of
Agriculture and at the time of filing the application and he was in service. The
Appellant has sought voluminous information on 38 points related to different
subject matters concerning different CPIOs of Department of Agriculture &
Cooperation (DAC), other departments and State Governments. The Appellant
being an employee of DAC should have sought information from the concerned
CPIOs. However, he has addressed his application to the CPIO (NHM), Ministry
of Agriculture, (DAC). The Appellant had also sought explanations, inferences
and interpretations of various schemes/programmes of DAC as well as of other
departments. The CPIO (NHM), to whom the application was addressed, has
forwarded the same to the following CPIOs for furnishing the relevant information
to the Appellant:
a. AMD & CPIO, National Horticulture Board.
b. Deputy Secretary & CPIO, O&M Unit, Krishi Bhavan.
c. Director(Mktg.) & CPIO, Marketing Division, DAC.
d. Deputy Secretary & CPIO, Deptt. of Food & Public Distribution.
e. Additional Commissioner & CPIO, Incharge of TMNE, CIH &
Bamboo, DAC.
f. Director (PC&GC) and CPIO, PC Division.
g. Additional Economic Advisor & CPIO, Dte. of Economic & Statics.
h. Deputy Secretary & CPIO, Deptt. of Expenditure.
i. Member Secretary & CPIO, CACP.
j. Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala.
Thereafter the Appellant has filed an appeal to the First Appellate
Authority of CPIO (NHM) for all the points. The First Appellate Authority (FAA)
has considered the appeal and also directed the concerned CPIO under his
jurisdiction to provide additional information, which in his opinion, is admissible
under the RTI Act which was not provided earlier to the Appellant. The FAA
submits that the shortcomings, if any, in the replies of other CPIOs are to be dealt
with by the concerned Appellate Authority. The CPIOs who have provided the
information and who have separate Appellate Authority are as follows:
A Deputy Secretary & CPIO, O&M Unit, Ms. Uma Goel, JS.
Krishi Bhavan.
B Director (Mktg.) and CPIO, Marketing Shri R.K. Tewari, JS
Division, DAC
C Deputy Secretary & CPIO, Deptt. Of JS, Food & Public Distribution
Food and Public Distribution
D Director (PC&GC) & CPIO, PC Division Ms. Uma Goel and Sh. S.C. Garg,
JS.
E Additional Economic Advisor & CPIO, Sh. Madho N. Lothe, Advisor
Dte. of Economic & Statistics.
F Deputy Secretary & CPIO, Deptt. Of JS(Pers.) DoE
Expenditure
G CPIO, CACP. Member Secretary
Finally, the Respondent submits that every effort has been made to
provide the information under the RTI Act to the Appellant by the CPIO as well as
by the FAA.
After hearing the parties and on perusal of the relevant documents on file,
the Commission is of the view that there is no omission on the part of
Respondent in forwarding the RTI application to the concerned PIO, on the
relevant points, under intimation to the Appellant. The Commission is of the view
that under the provisions of the RTI Act, the information seeker is supposed to
prefer an Appeal to the concerned Appellate Authority, who is senior in rank to
the concerned CPIO. The Section 19(i) of the RTI Act, deserves to be quoted
here:
“19. (1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time
specified in subsection (1) or clause (a) of subsection (3) of section 7, or is
aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of
such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer
who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority:
Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period
of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by
sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. ”
In view of the above, the Commission does not find merit in the contention
of the Appellant that there should be a single Appellate Authority for each of the
PIOs.
Moreover, if an independent PIO has been designated for providing the
information which is held or under his control, the information seeker will get the
information only from that concerned CPIO.
In respect of the reply of the FAA/Joint Secretary (NHM) and the reply of
CPIO/Dy. Commissioner(Hort.) dated 25.11.2009, the Commission finds that
pointwise information has been furnished in respect of points concerning them.
During the hearing the Appellant expresses his satisfaction with the information
provided to him by the CPIO on point Nos. 6, 7, 12 , 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 of the
RTI Application. He also conceded that point Nos. 36, 37, 38 are concerned with
the State Government of Kerala from where he should seek the necessary reply
of his RTI Application. In respect of the rest of the points on which CPIO and
(NHM) has replied, the Appellant submits that that he is not satisfied with the
reply and would like to inspect the concerned file. On going through the reply of
CPIO(NHM), the Commission finds that requisite information in respect of point
Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been provided by the Respondent. In respect of point
No. 18 of the RTI Application, the Respondent replied during the hearing that a
study was undertaken in this regard. The Appellant responded by saying that he
would like to inspect the concerned files. The Commission notes that many of
the queries of the Respondent are related to the NHM Programme and the
Appellant has generally pleaded that he be allowed to inspect the concerned
files.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the
interests of transparency and accountability, the Commission directs the
Respondent to allow the Appellant to inspect the relevant files of the NHM, H.Q.,
in Delhi, for a period of 3 hours on any working day within 15 days of receipt of
Commission’s order.
With these Observation/directions, the matter is disposed of on the part of
the Commission.
Sd/
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
29.11.2010
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2010/000255.
Authenticated true copy:
(S.Padmanabha)
Under Secretary & Deputy Registrar
Copy to:
. Shri Dilip Kumar Roy,
Flat No. C605, Sukh Sagar Apartments,
Plot No.12, Sector9, Dwarka,
New Delhi – 110075.
2. The C.P.I.O,
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation,
Deptt. of Agriculture and Cooperation,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority,
Director(Marketing),
Deptt. of Agriculture and Cooperation,
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.