Central Information Commission

Jatin Dhankhar vs Ut Of Daman & Diu on 15 January, 2021

Author:
Uday Mahurkar

Bench:
Uday Mahurkar

के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/UTDAD/A/2018/170083-UM

Mr. Jatin Dhankhar

....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनतम

CPIO
Administration of Daman & Diu
O/o Sub Divisional Police Officer 1st floor,
Nani Daman P S Opp DMC Market Nani Daman 396210
प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing : 11.01.2021
Date of Decision : 14.01.2021

Date of RTI application 24.05.2018
CPIO's response 20.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 24.07.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 31.08.2018
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 29.11.2018

ORDER

FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on the following 05 points: -

a) Certified copy of Reservation Roster (Direct Recruitment) for the post of Police Sub
Inspector (PSI) in Daman & Diu Police.

b) Certified copy of Reservation Roster (Promotion) for the post of Police Sub Inspector
(PSI) in Daman & Diu Police.

c) Certified copy of Reservation Roster (Direct Recruitment) for the post of Police Inspector
(PI) in Daman & Diu Police.

Page 1 of 6

d) Certified copy of Reservation Roster (Promotion) for the post of Police Inspector (PI) in
Daman & Diu Police.

e) Roster Point in Reservation Roaster (Direct Recruitment), consumed by Police Sub
Inspector (PSI) in Daman & Diu Police, recruited under Meritorious Sportsman Quota in
the year 2007.

f) Roster Point in Reservation Roaster (Promotion), consumed by Police Sub Inspector
(PSI) in Daman & Diu Police, recruited under Meritorious Sportsman Quota in the year
2007.

The CPIO and Sub Div. Police Officer, vide letter dated 20.06.2018, denied the information on
the ground that the information asked seems to be inconsequential and does not seem to be serve
any larger public interest. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the
FAA. The FAA and Supdt. of Police, vide order dated 31.08.2018, concurred with the reply of
the FAA. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request
to provide the information and to impose penalty on the erring Respondent.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Jatin Dhankhar through AC;

Respondent: Mr. Rajnikant Awadhiya, SDPO through AC;

The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that the information
sought relating to Reservation Roaster (Direct Recruitment / Promotion, etc.) was wrongly
denied by the CPIO / FAA. While reiterating the contents of the Second Appeal, the Appellant
submitted that the Road Transport Department of UT, Administration of Daman and Diu and
State Bank of India, has uploaded the Reservation Roster on their website and hence, the
information sought should be suo-motu disclosed in the public domain being public document, in
compliance with the provisions of
Section 4
of the RTI Act, 2005. In its reply, the Respondent
present during the hearing, informed the Commission that a suitable reply has been furnished to
the Appellant by the CPIO / FAA.

On being queried by the Commission as to why the information sought of public nature i.e.
Reservation Roster (Direct Recruitment / Promotion, etc.) for different posts were denied to the
Appellant, no cogent reply was offered by the Respondent who further apportioned the blame on
his predecessor for replying the RTI application in a casual manner.

The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information such as Reservation
Roster for different posts, etc. that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule
and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open
government, which is the cherished objective of the
RTI Act
, can be realised only if all public
offices comply with proactive disclosure norms.
Section 4(2)
of the RTI Act mandates every
public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals
through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not
resort to the use of
RTI Act
. Thus, information relating to Reservation Roster (Direct

Page 2 of 6

Recruitment / Promotion, etc.) for different posts should be disclosed suo motu in the public
domain for the ease and convenience of the public at large.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of
CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay
and Ors
2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:

"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information
are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption
and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of
RTI Act
should be
enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary
information under Clause (b) of
Section 4(1)
of the Act which relates to securing
transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging
corruption."

The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009
Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:

21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:

"16. It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent
possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been
defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the
information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements,
media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of
Section
of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under
the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the
internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions
of
Section 4
of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in
Section 4(1)(b)
and

4(1)(c)
on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the
RTI Act
to
obtain the information."

Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of
General Manager Finance Air India Ltd &
Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No.
205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:

"8.
The RTI Act
, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access
to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency
and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and
transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain
corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the
governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of
independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further
evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:

A. Publish inter alia:

i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;

ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;

iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in
discharging of its functions;

Page 3 of 6

iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts
allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;

v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted.

[see
Section 4(1) (b)
, (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].

B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as
possible [see
Section 4(2)
]."

Furthermore, the Commission observed that the issues raised in the RTI application pertained to
the larger public interest and hence the same should be answered in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. The Commission therefore referred to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of
Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas
Rizwi
: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:

"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to
give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public
interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of
a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public
interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have
a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the
concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar
Singh
([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants
recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake
[Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal

(decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the
following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:

"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:

"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is
interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in
which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their
legal rights or liabilities are affected."

In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :

Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights
or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may
be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."

In
Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India
(2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India while considering the validity of
SARFAESI Act
and recovery of non-performing assets
by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had
held as under :

".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest.
Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential
of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the
country..........."

Page 4 of 6

Every action of a Public Authority is expected to be carried out in Public Interest. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi, etc vs. State of UP and
Ors., 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 625 dated 20.09.1990 wherein it had been held as under:

"Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State
while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is
expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State
action is also on public interest."

With regard to providing a clear and cogent response to the Appellant, the Commission referred
to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C
) no.
7232/2009 wherein it was held that:

" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for
ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the
statutory requirements of the Act.
Section 5(4)
is simply to strengthen the authority of
the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has
sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken".

The RTI Act
makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of
Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C
)
19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed

".....that a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons
appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information.
The Act
as
framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is
failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the
provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary
consequences follow".

Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and
responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:

"3. Deciding appeals under the
RTI Act
is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore,
necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it
should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the
appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision
arrived at.

Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA
No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:

"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or
the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the
RTI Act
to
supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal
action is to be invoked against him only.

Page 5 of 6

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the
light of the decisions of the Superior Courts referred above, it was noted that although the CPIO /
FAA had technically replied to the RTI application / Appeal of the Appellant but it did not
address the substantive queries raised by him. It should be noted that the preamble of the
RTI
Act, 2005
laid emphasis on greater and effective access to information and providing an effective
framework for effectuating the right of information recognized under
Article 19
of the
Constitution of India. The spirit of the Act is laid down the emphasis on progressive,
participatory and meaningful flow of information and maximum disclosures and minimum
exemptions consistent with the constitutional provisions. Thus, the Respondent failed to capture
the spirit of the
RTI Act, 2005
and provided evasive and ambiguous replies against the spirit of
the Act. The Commission therefore directs the FAA to re-examine the RTI application and in the
light of aforesaid judgments for suo moto disclosures under
Section 4 (1) (b)
of the RTI Act,
2005 provide clear, cogent and precise reply to the Appellant within a period of 30 days from the
date of receipt of this order respecting the spirit of the Act.
The Commission further directs the FAA to disclose all the details in respect of the Reservation
Roster (Direct Recruitment / Promotion) for different posts on its website in the larger public
interest within the above stipulated time frame.

The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.

(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त)
Authenticated true copy
(अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत)

(R. K. Rao) (आर के राव)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598 /
[email protected]

दिनांक / Date: 14.01.2021

Copy to:

1. Superintendent of Police and First Appellate Authority, UT Administration of Daman and
Diu, O/o Superintendent of Police, Paanch Rasta, Nani Daman, 396210

Page 6 of 6