CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01049 dated 14.11.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri C. P. Rai
Respondent - Central Vigilance Commission
Facts
:
By an application of 28.5.07 Shri C. P. Rai of Laxmi Nagar, Delhi applied to
the CPIO, CVC seeking the following information with regard to a complaint from
the Upbhokta Hithrath Sansthan of 5.1.07:
“1. Please intimate whether the relevant record has been seized
or not. (Complaint file No. 300/05 from Distt. Forum, Qutab
Institutional area, New Delhi).
2. If not what are the reasons.
3. Please intimate the action taken against the responsible
officer for not seizing the said record.
4. Please intimate how much time it will take to Seize the
relevant record to eliminate the corruption.”
To this he received a response from Mr. Vineet Mathur, Dy. Secretary, CVC
on 2.7.07 as follows:
“Since the complaints were forwarded for necessary action and the
Commission did not ask for a report in the matter, the Commission
does not expect any reply in such matters from the CVO
concerned. You may follow up the matter with the concerned
authority, if required. However, a copy of your application dated
28.5.2007, made under the RTI Act, is being forwarded to Smt.
Alka Sirohi, IAS (MP 74), Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry of
Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi, for necessary action in terms of Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act.”
Not satisfied with the fact that CVC had transferred the matter to the
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, which according to him had in any case not taken
any action on his complaint, he made the following plea before first appellate
authority Sh V Kannan:
1
“Only CVC can now control the culprit President/ Members of the
Consumer Forum.
It is, therefore, requested to seize the documents and furnish the
required information as per RTI request at the earliest.”
Upon this Shri V. Kannan, Addl. Secy. and First Appellate Authority, CVC in
his letter of 3.8.07 ordered as follows:
“I find that CPIO had already given you the information to the extent
available in the Commission. As the Commission does not expect
any rely from the CVO concerned on the complaints sent to him for
necessary action, the CPIO had rightly transferred the application
to the CVO u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act.
The Central Information Commission in its decision No.
CIC/AT/A/2006/ 00022 dated 31.5.2006 on the appeal of Shri
Pratap Singh Gandas held that the RTI Act cannot be used to make
a public authority do certain things or take certain actions. It can be
invoked only for access to permissible information. The Central
Information Commission in another decision No.
CIC/AT/A/2006/0000045 dated 21.4.2006 on the appeal of dr. D. V.
Rao, held that 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.”
Appellant’s prayer before us in his second appeal is as below:
“Not to furnish the information as per rule 7 (9) of the Act,
means that the misleading, incorrect and incomplete
information was provided to me which attracts rule 26 of the
RTI Act. Since the correct information was not provided, the
CPIO must be penalised with Rs. 25,000/- may be reimbursed
to me and Rs. 25,000/- as penalty to AA and the amount may
be forwarded to the welfare of the Information seeker.”
The appeal was heard on 15.12.2008. Only respondent CPIO Shri Prabhat
Kumar, Dy. Secretary, CVC was present. Appellant Sh. C.P. Rai had been
informed by Notice dated 5.12.2008 regarding the hearing but he opted not to be
present.
The only point at issue in this case is the date of the response to the RTI
application of 28.5.07. Response to that application became due on 27.5.07 but
2
it appears had actually been given only on 2.7.07. Shri Prabhat Kumar, however,
clarified that in fact a reply had been sent on 8.6.07, a copy of which he showed
to us and a copy taken on record. In this letter Shri K. L. Ahuja Director & CPIO
CVC had informed Shri Rai as follows:
“The complaints reference No. 140/06 dated 14.11.2006 No.
161/06 dated 6.12.2006 and No. 3/07 dated 5.1.2007, received
from M/s Upbhogta Hithrath Sanstha have been forwarded to the
Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and
Public Distribution, New Delhi, vide Commission’s OM No. Comp.
No. 806/06/44593 dated 29.12.2006; Comp No. 806/06/46089
dated 16.1.2007 and Comp No. 806/06/50340 dated 8.3.2007
respectively, for necessary action in accordance with the
‘Complaints Handling Policy’ of the Commission which is available
on the its website https://cvc.nin.in. Since the complaints were
forwarded for necessary action and the Commission did not ask for
a report in the matter, the Commission does not expect any reply in
such matters from the concerned. You may follow up the matter
with the concerned authority, if required. However, a copy of your
application dated 28.5.2007, made under the RTI Act, is being
forwarded to Dr. Sundeep Khanna, Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry
of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi, for necessary action in terms of Section 6 (3) of the RTI
Act.”
A copy of this letter was sent to Dr. Sundeep Khanna, CVO, Ministry of
Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution Department (CA F&PD).
Respondent Shri Prabhat Kumar explained that in referring to information
supplied in his first appeal, Shri C.P. Rai has in fact referred to the letter received
from Shri K. L. Ahuja which was the letter of 8.6.08, the letter of 2.7.07 having
been sent by Sh. Vineet Mathur. The response had in fact been repeated
because Dr. Sundeep Khanna, to whom the earlier letter had been endorsed as
CVO, Department of CA F&PD was in fact not CVO. The letter was, therefore,
then forwarded to Smt. Alka Sirohi, the current CVO with the letter of 2.7.07, a
copy of which was sent to appellant Shri C. P Rai only to inform him of this
action. There has, therefore, been no breach of the time limit mandated u/s 7(1)
in the present case.
3
DECISION NOTICE
The application of 28.5.07 of Shri C.P Rai amounts to a request for being
informed of the action taken on the complaint of 5.1.07 of the Upbhokta Hitarth
Sanstha. This information has in fact been provided on 8.6.07 by CPI Sri Ahuja
by informing the applicant Shri Rai that the matter stands transferred to the CVO,
Dep’t. of CA, F&PD. Thereafter both first and second appeals of appellant Shri
Rai are in the nature of grievance at the manner in which the CVC had disposed
of this complaint, not a request for information which alone this Commission
stands empowered to direct provision of. The appeal, being outside the
purview of this Commission, fails and is therefore dismissed.
On the question of apparent delay in response to the application, this doubt
has proved unfounded in light of the letter of 8.6.08 providing the information
sought to appellant Shri Rai. There will, therefore, be no penalty. It is also
clarified for the information of appellant that penalties under the Act are no
compensation and are therefore payable only to government.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
15.12.2008
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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
15.12.2008
4