RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT IS NOT THE PROPER LAW FOR REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCES/DISPUTES

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

Information

Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘Act’ for short) defines the term ‘information’ as any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.

This definition shows that an applicant under the Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed.

The Supreme Court in ‘CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR. VERSUS ADITYA BANDOPADHYAY & ORS. - 2011 (8) TMI 538 - SUPREME COURT held that it is not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant. The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of ‘information’ in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provided advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the Act.

 Right to Information

Section 3 of the Act provides that all citizens shall have the right to information from the Public Authorities subject to the provisions of this Act.  Section 2(j) of the Act defines the expression ‘right to information’ as the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to-

• inspection of work, documents, records;
• taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;
• taking certified samples of material;
• obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device.

The Supreme Court of India in KHANAPURAM GANDAIAH VERSUS  ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND ORS. - 2010 (1) TMI 1284 - SUPREME COURT held that the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the ‘public authority’ under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him.

Administrative function

The functions of the Authorities constituted under the Act are only administrative in nature and not judicial.

The  Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS NAMIT SHARMA - 2013 (10) TMI 1108 - SUPREME COURT with State of Rajasthan and another  v. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No.210 of 2012 had held that while deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information ‘which is held by or under the control of any public authority’, the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions.

Adjudication of disputes

The Authorities under the Act can furnish information to the applicant which is under his control.  The Authority is not having judicial power as already discussed.  The Authority is not having power to adjudicate any dispute.

 The High Court of Delhi in HANSI RAWAT & ANR. VERSUS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. - 2013 (1) TMI 319 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that the proceedings under the  Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the  Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished.

The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.

 In GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI VERSUS RAJENDER PRASAD - 2017 (11) TMI 2010 - DELHI HIGH COURT, the  High Court of Delhi had held that  it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act.   The limited scope of examination by the CIC is-

• whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him;
• if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; 
• whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; 
• whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. 

In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.

Authority not for redressal of grievances

The framework of the Act restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes of the applicant. 

In  MR. H.K. BANSAL VERSUS CPIO & GM (OP) MTNL - 2013 (1) TMI 1043 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION the appellant through a number of queries spread over 07 pages had sought huge information about disposal of various communications addressed by him to MTNL functionaries along with copy of notes on file(s) related to several letters mentioned in his RTI application, he had also sought certain information regarding CE (C) posts in MTNL and details related to execution of building works etc.  The allegation of the appellant is that the information supplied by the PIO is not complete and correct.

The CPIO informed the Commission that the appellant (a retired employee) has a service related grievance and has filed over 44 RTI applications seeking huge and voluminous information held by various CPIO’s and compiling the same is disproportionately diverting the resources of the public authority and entailing huge cost to the exchequer.   The appellant is also contesting the action of the department for alleged non compliance with the rules and in the garb of seeking information is trying to pressurize the public authority to settle his grievance.

The Commission directed the CPIO, Corporate Office, to permit the appellant to inspect the relevant files/records as aforesaid on 25.02.2013 at 11.00 AM and also permit him to take photocopies/extracts there from, free of cost, up to 100 pages and thereafter on the payment of prescribed fee.  The Commission further held that the Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes and there are other appropriate forum(s) for resolving such matters.  The Commission dismissed the appeal.

In ‘, the Appellant MR. RAJENDER SINGH CHAUHAN VERSUS CPIO AND OTHERS  - 2019 (3) TMI 2000 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points seeking clarification regarding the basis on which 6th CPC Pay Fixation Bills and Arrear Bills were passed by the ZAO, Shimla/ Patiala, copy of the order/ notification followed by the ZAPO, Shimla, Patiala to pass and release the salary and pay arrear, etc.  The CPIO and Sr. Accounts Officer (LCS), New Delhi vide its letter dated 14.12.2016 forwarded the application to the Zonal Accounts Officer, CBDT, Shimla.  The CPIO, ZAO, Shimla, vide its letter dated 13.01.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Furthermore, the CPIO, O/o the Pr. Chief Controller of Accounts, Patiala, vide its letter dated 20.04.2017 provided a response on point no. 01 and 02 of the RTI application. Being dissatisfied with the order of CPIO the appellant filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority which concurred the decision of CPIO.  Against this the appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission.

The appellant submitted the following before the Commission-

• The redressal of his grievance in respect of his pay fixation as per the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission had not been resolved appropriately.
• There was a delay in forwarding his application from the Head Office to Zonal Accounts Office, Shimla/ Patiala.
• The details of the circular issued by Ministry of Finance / DOE dated 30.08.2008 had not been furnished fully. 

The Department submitted the following before the Commission-

• The pay fixation of the appellant had been correctly carried out in accordance with the extant guidelines and that they have nothing more to comment on his grievance regarding re- fixation of his pay. 
• The office at Shimla came into existence in the year 2012 and therefore there was palpable delay in transfer of such applications.

The Commission relied on the decision in ‘H.K. Bansal’ (supra) and held that that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.  The Commission found that there is no cause to interfere with the findings of First Appellate Authority.  However the Commission directed to furnish a copy of the OM issued by the MoF dated 30.08.2008 to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, free of cost. The Commission also directed the appellant to approach an appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance.