PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSAM INFORMATION COMMISSION
Case No. 20/2007
Dated 06-03-2007
Name of the Complainant:
Sri Ranjit Nag
Stcretary cum Registrar
Office of the Lokayukta, Assam
Bamunimaidan, Guwahati - 21
Name of the Public Authority:
Finance Department
The following was present:
Sri Ranjit Nag - Appellant
Shri K V Eapen, IAS
Commissioner & Secretary, Finance
& Appellate Authority
Smt. R. Begum
SPIO & Deputy Secretary
Finance Department
The appellant Shri Ranjit Nag, Secretary cum Registrar of the office of the
Lokayukta, Assam present. Shri K V Eapen, IAS, Commissioner & Secretary, Finance Department,
Government of Assam, who is the appellate authority along with Mrs. R. Begum, SPIO of the Finance
Department, Government of Assam present.
Brief of the case
Shri Ranjit Nag, Secretary cum Registrar of the office of the Lokayukta, Assam
submitted a second appeal before the State Information Commission, Assam under
section 19 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 stating that the appellate
authority i.e. the Commissioner & Secretary, Finance Department, Government
of Assam rejected the first appeal preferred before him on 7th October, 2006 vide
his order dated 5.11.2006. The Secretary cum Registrar of the office of the Lokayukta
wrote to the State Public Information Officer, Finance Department seeking information
about the movement of the file containing budget estimate of the office of the
Lokayukta along with the enclosures which were missing or removed. He requested
that the extract of each and every effective note in the relevant file relating
to the budget proposal of Lokayukta office should be furnished to him.
The SPIO of the Finance Department wrote to him on 2.9.2006 informing him that
the Finance Department was seeking advice from the State Chief Information Commissioner,
Assam as to whether the furnishing of information relating to the preparation
and adoption of the budget would be in consonance with the privilege of the State
Legislature and Rule 37 (3) of the Assam Rules of Executive Business. Later the
SPIO, Finance Department again wrote to the Secretary cum Registrar of the Lokayukta
Office informing him that the Finance Department was seeking advice from the Administrative
Reforms and Training Department regarding furnishing of information sought for
by him.
The Secretary cum Registrar of the Lokayukta office preferred this appeal before
the First Appellate Authority i.e. the Commissioner & Secretary, Government
of Assam, Finance Department in the matter of two letters No. FEB.83/2006/Pt/40
dated 2.9.2006 and FEB.83.2006/Pt/43 dated 6.9.2006 sent by the State Public Information
Officer, Finance Department to the Secretary cum Registrar of the Lokayukta office.
On receipt of this appeal the First Appellate Authority considered the matter
of furnishing information relating to movement of the budget papers sent by office
of the Lokayukta and the First Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal on the
basis of information given to him by the concerned branch of the department and
on perusal of the records as the SPIO, Finance Department was on leave. He also
considered the grounds for appeal as given in the appeal petition dated 27.9.06
by the appellant. The grounds for appeal in brief were as follows:
(a) The relevant information relating to the movement of the file and entries
thereof were sought only after the publication of the annual budget. At that point
the budget was no longer confidential but was a public document and thus the question
of privilege was not justified.
(b) None of the provisions of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act 2005 was
attracted.
(c) As per section 7 (2) of the Act failure to give a decision on the request
for information should be deemed as refusal as the SPIO could not arrive at any
clear decision on whether the request for information as sought for was to be
refused or not.
(d) Under the Act, there was no provision for delaying the decision. It only allowed
either the request to be provided or refused and thus the SPIO violated the provision
of section 7 (2) of the Act.
The First Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on the basis of on the definition
of information under section 2 (t) of the RTI Act. The other ground for rejection
was that section 3 of the RTI Act speaks about the right to information of a citizen
and in his opinion the Public authority as defined under section 2 (h) of the
Act cannot have recourse to the Right to Information Act to obtain information
from other Public Authority etc. The First Appellate Authority also cited the
instruction of the Government of India, Personnel, P.G & Reforms Department
in which it was mentioned that the file noting were not to be furnished to any
citizen seeking records. On these grounds the First Appellate Authority rejected
the appeal.
Submission of the parties:
On being aggrieved by the order of rejection by the First Appellate Authority
the Secretary cum-Registrar of the Lokayukta office preferred this second appeal
on the following grounds:
1. The First Appellate Authority agreed that no privilege could be claimed over
the budget papers which was submitted by the Lokyukta's office and hence information
should have been given by the Finance Department and not refused.
2. The no obligation exception to give any citizen information which will prejudicially
affect the economic interests of the State is also not tenable as the appellant
wanted the information as to how and at what stage the budget papers got lost
or removed. He also does not accept the contention that the Registrar of the office
of the Lokayukta has no right to seek information from another Public Authority
regarding the information of the movement of the budget papers in the Finance
Department.
3. The appellant also stated that he could not accept the contention of the First
Appellate Authority that the information does not include the file notings as
the Central Information Commission has already directed the Department of Personnel
and Training for removal of non-disclosure of file noting from its website.
Decision of the Commission
The Commission heard both the parties and on careful consideration of the facts
and circumstances of the case the Commission was of the opinion that the Information
Commission cannot be utilized as a dispute resolution forum by a' public authority
for redressal of their grievances/ disputes. Section 3 of the RTI Act clearly
defines that the citizen shall have the right to information. The Information
Commission is not the forum for dispute resolution or for redressal of grievances
between public authorities. However if the citizen seeks the same information
from the public authority in this case, the commission would have to consider
the matter in a different prospective altogether. The Commission is of the firm
opinion that the public authority cannot seek information under the Right to Information
Act from another public authority as there are other channels open to them for
seeking information. As such the second appeal preferred by the appellant is rejected
on this ground alone under section 19 (8) (d).
Sd/- (R.S. Mooshahary)
Chief Information Commissioner, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.
Sd/-(Dr. B.K. Gohain)
State Information Commissioner, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.
Authenticated true copy
(Jiauddin Ahmed)
Secretary, State Information Commission, Assam
Janata Bhawan, Dispur.
Memo No SIC.20/2007/16 Dated March 6, 2007
CC:
1. Shri K V Eapen, IAS Commissioner & Secretary, Finance & Appellate
Authority
2. Smt. R. Begum SPIO & Deputy Secretary Finance Department
3. Sri Ranjit Nag Secretary cum Registrar, Office of the Lokayukta, Assam Bamunimaidan,
Guwahati -21,
4 . MD, AMTRON
5 . Office file.
Secretary, Assam Information Commission