CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000278/SG/12906
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000278/SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant: Mr. Chetan Kothari
52, Oceanic Apartment, Dr. Rajabali Patel Lane,
Off B. Desai Road, Mumbai 400 026
Respondent: Mr. K. J. Sibichan
Under Secretary & CPIO
Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi
RTI application: 21/09/2010; 27/9/2010 transferred
PIO reply: 12/10/2010
First appeal 22/10/2010
FAA order 16/11/2010
Second appeal 30/11/2010
Information sought:
The appellant had filed the RTI application with PIO of the Lok Sabha Secretariat asking:
a) Please provide the details. Name wise break up of state ministers and cabinet ministers of central
government petrol & diesel consumption & amount with opp party leader.
(b) Please provide the details of each state ministers & cabinet ministers of central government (Name
wise break up) how many cars.
(c) Please provide the details of each state ministers & cabinet ministers of central government each of
them how many staff provided. (Give name wise ministers break up)
PIO’s reply:
On 27/09/2010 PIO of Lok Sabha Secretariat transferred the RTI application to PIO, Cabinet
Secretariat and PIO, Leader of Opposition.On October 4 Office of the Leader of Opposition provided this information:
“The staff car to Hon’ble Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha is provided by Lok Sabha Secretariat and
accordingly, all matters/records relating to the maintenance/ running, including the expenditure on
petrol/diesel, etc. of the car are being dealt/maintained by the concerned branch of Lok Sabha Secretariat.
The information required by the applicant is not available in the office of Leader of Opposition in Lok
Sabha and hence the CPIO is not in a position to give the required information to the applicant.
4. It is, therefore, requested that the CPIO, Lok Sabha Secretariat may he requested to give the
information directly to the applicant. The application forwarded with the OM dated 27.9.2010 is returned
herewith.”
On 12 October 2010 PIO, Cabinet Secretariat provided this information:
“2. The information sought is scattered among a large number of public authorities, including Central
Government Ministries/ Departments. Therefore, in terms of the provisions contained in O.M. No.
1012/2008-IR dated 12.6.2008 issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training), you are required to file separate applications with the CPIOs of
each of the Ministries/Departments concerned individually, for obtaining the required information.
3. In so far as the Cabinet Secretariat is concerned, the information may be treated as NIL.”
On 29/10/2010 PIO of the Lok Sabha Secretariat gave information that no information was available.
Grounds for First appeal:
Information not provided.
FAA order:
After carefully considering all the relevant documents, the Appellate Authority upholds the decision of
CPIO as referred in para 2 above and direct the CPIO to provide a copy of list of Ministries/Departments
which contains the office addresses of the public authority, within 10 working days.
Grounds for Second appeal:
Information not provided. Section 4 of the RTI Act not properly implemented.
Submissions dated 04/06/2011 of appellant received by email :
(1) CPIOs not transfer application within the stipulated period as per provision under Section 6 (3) &
delay inform to applicant.
(2) Applicant unable to send same application to 85 department of Central Govt. Which is waste of time
& money.
(3) Applicant sent RTI application to nodal CPlOs of ‘Loksabha Secretariat’ because that department
provide car, staff etc to opposite party leader.
(4) CPIOs violate the RTI Act & holding the information but misleads to applicant & wasting the public
money & time & increasing the work load for higher authority.
(5) CPIOs failure to Act according to under provision of Section 4(3) for the purposes of sub-section (1),
every information shall be disseminated widely and in such form and manner which is easily accessible to
the public. Also CPIOs failure to Act according to under provision of Section 5(3) & (4).
(6) PIO’s failure to Act according to under provision of Section 2(f), 4(1)d & 5.
Appellant quoted two orders for support of his written submission.
(1) It will be in context to quote the observation made by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in LPA 501/2009, pronounced on 12.1.2010 (matter relating to Asset Declaration of Judges of the
Apex Court):
The Act does not merely oblige the public authority to give information on being asked for it by a
citizen but requires it to suo moto make the information accessible. Section 4(1)(a) of the Act
requires every public authority to maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a
manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under the Act and ensure that all
records that are appropriate to be computerized are, within a reasonable time and subject to
availability of resources, computerized and connected through a network all over the country on
different systems so that access to such records is facilitated. Section 4 spells out various
obligations of public authorities and Sections 6 and 7 lay down the procedure to deal with request
for obtaining in formation.
(2) In fact the Hon’ble High Court of Madras even went a step further and stated that administrative
difficulties and shortage of manpower cannot be cited as reasons for denying information. While
dismissing WP No. 20372 of 2009 and MP No. 1 of 2009, in a Judgment dated 7.1.2010, the Hon’ble
court ruled:
The other objections that they are maintaining a large number of documents in respect of 45
departments and they are short of human resources cannot be raised to whittle down the citizens’
right to seek information. It is for them to write to the Government to provide for additional staff
depending upon the volume of requests that may be forthcoming pursuant to the RTI Act. It is
purely an internal matter between the petitioner archives and the State Government. The right to
information having bee!? guaranteed by the law of Parliament, the administrative difficulties in
pro v/ding information cannot be raised. Such pleas will defeat the very right of citizens to have
access to information. Hence the objections raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by
this court. The writ petition lacks in merit.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Chetan Kothari on video conference from NIC-Mumbai-Studio;
Respondent: Mr. K. J. Sibichan, Under Secretary & CPIO;
The RTI application had been filed by the Appellant to the Lok Sabha Secretariat seeking
information about consumption of Petrol and Diesel by State Ministers and Cabinet Ministers including
the leader of the opposition and staff. The appellant has sought this information for a period of 10 years
which appears excessive, since it is unlikely that information would be maintained in this format for 10
years. The PIO of the Lok Sabha Secretariat transferred the RTI application to the Cabinet Secretariat and
to the PIO of the office of Leader of Opposition. No information has been provided by both the PIOs since
they said they do not have the information. The PIO of the Cabinet Secretariat has taken the position that
he cannot transfer the RTI application to PIOs of various ministries and is depending on an office
memorandum issued by DOPT no. 10/02/2008-IR dated 12/06/2008 which states that Section 6(3) of the
RTI Act mentions public authority in the singular and therefore the RTI application can only be
transferred to one public authority as per the RTI Act. The Appellant disputes this and states that the RTI
application should have been transferred wherever required and he also quotes a Madras High Court
Judgment in support of his contention.
Section 6(3) of the RTI Act state,
“Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,-
(i) which is held by another public authority; or
(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority,
the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:
Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.”
The point to be determined is whether Section 6(3) means that the transfer should only be made to one public authority or to multiple public authorities, if required. Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 stipulates inter alia that in all central legislations and regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa. Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 enacts a general rule of construction that words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa but the rule is subject to the proviso that there shall be nothing repugnant to such a construction in the subject or context of the legislation which is to be construed. This principle of law has been well- established and applied by the Supreme Court of India from time to time viz. in K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab 1960 SCR (2) 89, Narashimaha Murthy v. Susheelabai & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1826 and J. Jayalalitha v. UOI & Anr. AIR 1999 SC 1912, as well as by several High Courts while interpreting various statutory provisions.
There is nothing in the Act which would show that Parliament intended that the transfer should only be to
one public authority. It also appears that DOPT’s office memorandum is in contravention of the General
Clauses Act 1987 and interpreted Section 6(3) of the RTI Act wrongly. The whole purpose of the RTI Act
has been to facilitate flow of information to the Citizens. In the instant case it has been shown that
whereas the Appellant applied to the Lok Sabha Secretariat, the Lok Sabha Secretariat itself believed that
the information would be available with the Office of the Leader of the Opposition and with the Cabinet
Secretariat. Both these offices have admitted that they have no information in this matter. Thus even in
this case, the Lok Sabha Secretariat was not aware who would hold the information being sought by the
Appellant. The law does not put any restriction on the public authorities to which the RTI application
could be transferred. The Commission does believe that an appellant should seek information from a
public authority which he can reasonably believe may have the information. In the instant case the
Appellant appears to have exercised reasonable care and applied and to a public authority which an
average citizen may believe will hold the information.
There are numerous instances where RTI applications have been transferred by one public authority to
another and none of them appears to know where the information is. In this scenario for public authorities
to take a position that they will only transfer to one public authority is unreasonable and the law certainly
does not state this. Public Authorities claim that it would be difficult to transfer RTI applications to
multiple authorities since it would mean putting a lot of resource. Section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act has
talked of computerization of records and functions in various public authorities. Various Prime Ministers
since 1985 have been promising to computerize operations in Government. This is a promise and
commitment which is not being followed by various public authorities. If the records and operations were
computerized, transferring an RTI application to even 50 or 100 public authorities could be done with a
click of mouse by email. If public authorities do not meet commitments implied in the RTI Act, the citizen
cannot be denied his fundamental right.
The Commission rules that DOPT’s office memorandum no. 10/02/2008-IR dated 12/06/2008 is not
consistent with the law. The Commission explained to the Appellant that seeking information for 10 years
would definitely disproportionately divert the resources of the public authorities. He has agreed that
information could be furnished to him for the last two years.
Decision:The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to transfer the RTI application to various public authorities
before 25 June 2011, who must provide information for the last two years to the Appellant
as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
16 June 2011
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000278/SG/12906
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000278/SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant: Mr. Chetan Kothari
52, Oceanic Apartment, Dr. Rajabali Patel Lane,
Off B. Desai Road, Mumbai 400 026
Respondent: Mr. K. J. Sibichan
Under Secretary & CPIO
Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi
RTI application: 21/09/2010; 27/9/2010 transferred
PIO reply: 12/10/2010
First appeal 22/10/2010
FAA order 16/11/2010
Second appeal 30/11/2010
Information sought:
The appellant had filed the RTI application with PIO of the Lok Sabha Secretariat asking:
a) Please provide the details. Name wise break up of state ministers and cabinet ministers of central
government petrol & diesel consumption & amount with opp party leader.
(b) Please provide the details of each state ministers & cabinet ministers of central government (Name
wise break up) how many cars.
(c) Please provide the details of each state ministers & cabinet ministers of central government each of
them how many staff provided. (Give name wise ministers break up)
PIO’s reply:
On 27/09/2010 PIO of Lok Sabha Secretariat transferred the RTI application to PIO, Cabinet
Secretariat and PIO, Leader of Opposition.On October 4 Office of the Leader of Opposition provided this information:
“The staff car to Hon’ble Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha is provided by Lok Sabha Secretariat and
accordingly, all matters/records relating to the maintenance/ running, including the expenditure on
petrol/diesel, etc. of the car are being dealt/maintained by the concerned branch of Lok Sabha Secretariat.
The information required by the applicant is not available in the office of Leader of Opposition in Lok
Sabha and hence the CPIO is not in a position to give the required information to the applicant.
4. It is, therefore, requested that the CPIO, Lok Sabha Secretariat may he requested to give the
information directly to the applicant. The application forwarded with the OM dated 27.9.2010 is returned
herewith.”
On 12 October 2010 PIO, Cabinet Secretariat provided this information:
“2. The information sought is scattered among a large number of public authorities, including Central
Government Ministries/ Departments. Therefore, in terms of the provisions contained in O.M. No.
1012/2008-IR dated 12.6.2008 issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training), you are required to file separate applications with the CPIOs of
each of the Ministries/Departments concerned individually, for obtaining the required information.
3. In so far as the Cabinet Secretariat is concerned, the information may be treated as NIL.”
On 29/10/2010 PIO of the Lok Sabha Secretariat gave information that no information was available.
Grounds for First appeal:
Information not provided.
FAA order:
After carefully considering all the relevant documents, the Appellate Authority upholds the decision of
CPIO as referred in para 2 above and direct the CPIO to provide a copy of list of Ministries/Departments
which contains the office addresses of the public authority, within 10 working days.
Grounds for Second appeal:
Information not provided. Section 4 of the RTI Act not properly implemented.
Submissions dated 04/06/2011 of appellant received by email :
(1) CPIOs not transfer application within the stipulated period as per provision under Section 6 (3) &
delay inform to applicant.
(2) Applicant unable to send same application to 85 department of Central Govt. Which is waste of time
& money.
(3) Applicant sent RTI application to nodal CPlOs of ‘Loksabha Secretariat’ because that department
provide car, staff etc to opposite party leader.
(4) CPIOs violate the RTI Act & holding the information but misleads to applicant & wasting the public
money & time & increasing the work load for higher authority.
(5) CPIOs failure to Act according to under provision of Section 4(3) for the purposes of sub-section (1),
every information shall be disseminated widely and in such form and manner which is easily accessible to
the public. Also CPIOs failure to Act according to under provision of Section 5(3) & (4).
(6) PIO’s failure to Act according to under provision of Section 2(f), 4(1)d & 5.
Appellant quoted two orders for support of his written submission.
(1) It will be in context to quote the observation made by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in LPA 501/2009, pronounced on 12.1.2010 (matter relating to Asset Declaration of Judges of the
Apex Court):
The Act does not merely oblige the public authority to give information on being asked for it by a
citizen but requires it to suo moto make the information accessible. Section 4(1)(a) of the Act
requires every public authority to maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a
manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under the Act and ensure that all
records that are appropriate to be computerized are, within a reasonable time and subject to
availability of resources, computerized and connected through a network all over the country on
different systems so that access to such records is facilitated. Section 4 spells out various
obligations of public authorities and Sections 6 and 7 lay down the procedure to deal with request
for obtaining in formation.
(2) In fact the Hon’ble High Court of Madras even went a step further and stated that administrative
difficulties and shortage of manpower cannot be cited as reasons for denying information. While
dismissing WP No. 20372 of 2009 and MP No. 1 of 2009, in a Judgment dated 7.1.2010, the Hon’ble
court ruled:
The other objections that they are maintaining a large number of documents in respect of 45
departments and they are short of human resources cannot be raised to whittle down the citizens’
right to seek information. It is for them to write to the Government to provide for additional staff
depending upon the volume of requests that may be forthcoming pursuant to the RTI Act. It is
purely an internal matter between the petitioner archives and the State Government. The right to
information having bee!? guaranteed by the law of Parliament, the administrative difficulties in
pro v/ding information cannot be raised. Such pleas will defeat the very right of citizens to have
access to information. Hence the objections raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by
this court. The writ petition lacks in merit.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Chetan Kothari on video conference from NIC-Mumbai-Studio;
Respondent: Mr. K. J. Sibichan, Under Secretary & CPIO;
The RTI application had been filed by the Appellant to the Lok Sabha Secretariat seeking
information about consumption of Petrol and Diesel by State Ministers and Cabinet Ministers including
the leader of the opposition and staff. The appellant has sought this information for a period of 10 years
which appears excessive, since it is unlikely that information would be maintained in this format for 10
years. The PIO of the Lok Sabha Secretariat transferred the RTI application to the Cabinet Secretariat and
to the PIO of the office of Leader of Opposition. No information has been provided by both the PIOs since
they said they do not have the information. The PIO of the Cabinet Secretariat has taken the position that
he cannot transfer the RTI application to PIOs of various ministries and is depending on an office
memorandum issued by DOPT no. 10/02/2008-IR dated 12/06/2008 which states that Section 6(3) of the
RTI Act mentions public authority in the singular and therefore the RTI application can only be
transferred to one public authority as per the RTI Act. The Appellant disputes this and states that the RTI
application should have been transferred wherever required and he also quotes a Madras High Court
Judgment in support of his contention.
Section 6(3) of the RTI Act state,
“Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,-
(i) which is held by another public authority; or
(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority,
the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:
Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.”
The point to be determined is whether Section 6(3) means that the transfer should only be made to one public authority or to multiple public authorities, if required. Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 stipulates inter alia that in all central legislations and regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa. Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 enacts a general rule of construction that words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa but the rule is subject to the proviso that there shall be nothing repugnant to such a construction in the subject or context of the legislation which is to be construed. This principle of law has been well- established and applied by the Supreme Court of India from time to time viz. in K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab 1960 SCR (2) 89, Narashimaha Murthy v. Susheelabai & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1826 and J. Jayalalitha v. UOI & Anr. AIR 1999 SC 1912, as well as by several High Courts while interpreting various statutory provisions.
There is nothing in the Act which would show that Parliament intended that the transfer should only be to
one public authority. It also appears that DOPT’s office memorandum is in contravention of the General
Clauses Act 1987 and interpreted Section 6(3) of the RTI Act wrongly. The whole purpose of the RTI Act
has been to facilitate flow of information to the Citizens. In the instant case it has been shown that
whereas the Appellant applied to the Lok Sabha Secretariat, the Lok Sabha Secretariat itself believed that
the information would be available with the Office of the Leader of the Opposition and with the Cabinet
Secretariat. Both these offices have admitted that they have no information in this matter. Thus even in
this case, the Lok Sabha Secretariat was not aware who would hold the information being sought by the
Appellant. The law does not put any restriction on the public authorities to which the RTI application
could be transferred. The Commission does believe that an appellant should seek information from a
public authority which he can reasonably believe may have the information. In the instant case the
Appellant appears to have exercised reasonable care and applied and to a public authority which an
average citizen may believe will hold the information.
There are numerous instances where RTI applications have been transferred by one public authority to
another and none of them appears to know where the information is. In this scenario for public authorities
to take a position that they will only transfer to one public authority is unreasonable and the law certainly
does not state this. Public Authorities claim that it would be difficult to transfer RTI applications to
multiple authorities since it would mean putting a lot of resource. Section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act has
talked of computerization of records and functions in various public authorities. Various Prime Ministers
since 1985 have been promising to computerize operations in Government. This is a promise and
commitment which is not being followed by various public authorities. If the records and operations were
computerized, transferring an RTI application to even 50 or 100 public authorities could be done with a
click of mouse by email. If public authorities do not meet commitments implied in the RTI Act, the citizen
cannot be denied his fundamental right.
The Commission rules that DOPT’s office memorandum no. 10/02/2008-IR dated 12/06/2008 is not
consistent with the law. The Commission explained to the Appellant that seeking information for 10 years
would definitely disproportionately divert the resources of the public authorities. He has agreed that
information could be furnished to him for the last two years.
Decision:The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to transfer the RTI application to various public authorities
before 25 June 2011, who must provide information for the last two years to the Appellant
as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
16 June 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment