CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01619 dated 19.12.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri P. Ganapathi Swamy
Respondent - Dep't. of Personnel & Training.(DoPT)
Facts
:
By an application of 4.12.2006, Shri Ganapathi Swamy of K. K. Nagar,
Madurai, Tamilnadu applied to Desk Officer Ms. Bandana Banerjee, CPIO,
DOPT seeking information on 12 questions regarding fixing of seniority in
Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). To this he received a response
of 4.1.07 from Ms. Bandana Banerjee seeking to answer each of the questions
but with qualification as follows:
“It is not the intent of requirement of the RTI Act to provide
clarifications/ opinion on statements/ surmises made by the
requester. Nor is it envisaged under this Act to provide
justifications/ review of policy based on individual applications.
Subject to the above scope/ intent of the Act, the following
information with reference to your queries is provided:-
Query No. 1:- It is informed that the matter relating to interpretation,
in general, of the relevant provisions of DOP&T policy
Circular dated 3rd July, 1986, is under consideration for
review.
Query No. 2:- It is informed that the said letter of ESIC was
received on 29.2.2000.
Query No. 5: No reply received from ESIC.
Query Nos. 6 & 7:- The required information is not held by the
CPIO.
Query No. 8:- The name of Secretary (Personnel) is Shri L. K.
Joshi.
Query No. 9 (b):- DOP&T O. M. No. 43019/23/99-Estt (D) dated
29th February, 2000 was issued/ dispatched on 2nd March,
2000.
Queries Nos. 10 and 11:- An RTI applicant, who has subsequently
preferred an appeal against the information furnished by
CPIO, and who is dissatisfied with the reply of the appellate
authority, can make a second appeal against the decision of
the appellate authority of the Central Information1
Commission within 90 days as provided under sub-section
(3) of the Section 19 o0f the RTI Act, 2005.
Query No. 12:- Advice is given by a Department DOP&T in this
case- and not by an officer in his/ her individual capacity.”
Not satisfied with this response Shri Ganapathi Swami moved an appeal on
5.2.2007 before Ms. Smita Kumar, Director (E-1), DOPT pleading that the
information “furnished by the CPIO is incorrect/ insufficient.” In a detailed
response of 9.3.07 Ms. Smita Kumar has addressed each of the questions and
concluded as below :
“Para 1 of the appeal: No such information has been received. In
view of the averment of the applicant that such information
has been sent by ESIC to this Department, this part is
transferred to ESIC for making the information directly
available to him.
Para 2 of the appeal: As rightly informed by the CPIO in her reply
dated 4.1.2007, under the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is
required to provide material information as is available in her
custody. It is not required to the CPIO to provide
clarifications/ justifications or review of policy based on
individual applications.
Para 3 of the appeal
Para (a):- Shri PCP Mahapatra was holding the post of
Section Officer before joining ESIC as per records of
this Department.
Para (b):- This information is not available in this
Department, as such it cannot be supplied.
Para 4 of the appeal: On the queries in sub-items (a) and (c ) of
para 9 of the RTI application, attention of the applicant is
invited to para 10 (2) of earlier appeal disposed of vide Order
dated 4th September, 2006.
On (b) of para 9 of your RTI application: As already informed by
CPIO, the letter dated 29th February, 2000 was dispatched
(through R&I) on 2nd March, 2000.
Para 10 and 11 of the appeal: There are no specific instructions on
the issue.
Para 12 of the appeal: Reply of CPIO is endorsed.”
2
Almost simultaneously on 6.3.07 Shri Swami also received a letter from
Asstt. Director (Law) ESIC informing him as below:
“Since the information required by you is for your personal use, you
are, therefore, at liberty to get this information by applying the same
at Hqrs. Office under Right to Information Act 2005 by following the
normal procedure on the payment of Rs. 10/-“
Shri Swamy has then moved a second appeal before us with the following
prayer:
“I request the CIC to probe into the omissions and
commissions of DOPT in this regard and inter alia cause to
apply a copy of the letter dated 22.11.2006 ibid.”
The appeal was heard through videoconferencing on 18.5.2009. The
following are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Madurai
Shri P. Ganapathi Swamy
Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi.
Ms. Smita Kumar, Director (E-1)
Sh. R. D. Talukdar, US (Estt.D)
Appellant Shri Swami submitted that since the time he had moved the
second appeal before us he has obtained clarifications on a number of points on
which he has sought information and redress to his grievance has to a large part
been addressed. There is, therefore, only a single question that remains
unanswered, which is as below:
“How many times Shri P.C.P. Mahapatra had come to the
Department of Personnel from 1.1.1999 till 30.11.2006? The dates
of his visits, whom he met and how much time he spent in the
Ministry of Personnel may also be furnished.”
Ms. Smita Kumar submitted that the DOPT maintains no such record upon
which Sh. Swamy clarified that the record is maintained at the Reception counter
of every Ministry where every person from the public must present himself before
being permitted to enter together with an entry permit, upon counter signature of
which an entrant is allowed to exit thereafter.
3
DECISION NOTICE
The information now remaining as per the request of Shri Swami concerns
a third party. However, this information cannot be held to be information held in
confidence since it concerns entries to a public office and is, therefore, clearly a
public activity. It is also correct that record of entrance and exit in Central
Government Offices is maintained by the security office, which would fall under
the administration of Ministry of Home Affairs. Such a record is not maintained
with regard to Central Govt. employees who carry entry cards. It is quite possible
that Shri Mahapatra who, by appellant’s own admission was, before his transfer
to ESIC, an Officer in the DOPT might have continued to hold the Entry Pass for
access to the DOPT. Nevertheless it should be possible for the CPIO DoPT to
obtain such information as is maintained by the MHA on this subject for the
period regarding which information has been sought or to inform the appellant
Sh. Swami that there is no such record. This response could in the normal
course have been sought by transfer under sub-sec 3 of Sec 6. However, since
the fault now lies with CPIO DoPT for not having done so in the time mandated,
CPIO Shri R. D. Talukdar US (Estt-D), DOPT is, therefore, directed to obtain
the information on this point, as sought by appellant Shri Ganapathi
Swamy from the Ministry of Home Affairs and provide the same to
appellant within 15 working days of the date of receipt of this Decision
Notice. The appeal is, thus allowed in part. There will be no costs.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
18.5.2009
4
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
18.5.2009
5